Farmer in the dark

The discovery of the human genome makes no waves in Podiappuhamy's life. Daily he plods to his arid chena, eking out a living off a centuries- old system. The green revolution has not touched him. The hotly debated genetically modified (GM) crops mean nothing to this man. He will continue to sow the same crop, in the same fertility drained soil and suffer the same pangs when he cannot sell the produce in the market. Can things ever change in his time? Will his son farm the soil at all?

One gets the impression, that apart from rice and the plantation crops, agriculture in this country lacks direction. That it lacks a proper extension service to take research, technology and new methods to the farmers. That it continuously conflicts with the country's trade policy and loses the battle- this is when scores of farmers threaten suicide, unable to market their produce at cost.

While scientists in sophisticated laboratories in the state universities churn out reams of research that run parallel to world developments in agri-technology, our farmers still struggle with simple methods. At a time when micro-irrigation methods, soil-less cultivation, greenhouse technology are referred to in the past tense, we depend largely on primitive rain-fed cultivation, most likely to fail in today's fickle weather conditions. When even countries like India are using biotechnology in mass scale commercial agriculture, here technology is confined to a few large-scale agro-companies, without making due impact on the large farmer community.

In fact the Department of Agriculture blames the market for the low use of technology in the country. "It's not a failure of the Department. If there is a good, steady and ready market, I'm sure farmers will be demanding technology. Today we are trying to take it to the field and adoption of new methods is very slow. This is because there is no steady market for any crop," said G. Jayawardena, Director General of Agriculture.

The Department's extension service suffered a serious setback after the subject was devolved to the provincial councils. Without adequate funds for agri-extension, the nurtured service began to crumble. Today the revived extension service is merely a shadow of the widespread network of knowledgeable officers of yesteryear. In the Department's headquarters in Peradeniya, the central spine of the extension service is confined to printing books, leaflets and preparing audio-visual material for farmer education.

Director, Extension and Communication, S. Wirasinghe agreed that technology transfer is demand driven. "Extension service is important. But it is not necessary to spoon-feed farmers. If there is a demand for better technology, we can provide the service. We are quite capable of it."

But again, market plays the key role, said Wirasinghe. "Agriculture has failed due to non-technical issues."

The fault lies everywhere. It is ingrained in a system that does not encourage university research to filter down to farmers. In a system that does not protect farmers adequately from price shocks. In a system that does not look long term at globalization impacts on poor farmers and the need to nurture modern farming practices.

There is no mechanism that effectively links the majority of farmers with the cocooned research scientists -in universities or even the Agriculture department's own research stations. As a result scientists obtain large funding for research that has no real field value and farmers flounder for information that is either not there or not in palatable form.

"We are working in the dark," said Dr. Kumudu Fernando, Deputy Director, Plant Genetic Resources Centre (PGRC) at Gannoruwa, Peradeniya. "We know little of the realities at ground level. And most research we do is confined to paper, since there is no demand from farmers."

Example: The PGRC perfected techniques of tissue culturing aloe vera, a medicinal herb widely used in cosmetics, many years ago. But there has been little enthusiasm from farmers -either the message has not reached them or they cannot find a proper market for the produce.

"The universities also must take up much of the blame," said Kshanika Hirimburegama, Associate Professor of Botany, Colombo Univerisity. "For a long time university research on agriculture continued happily oblivious to the real needs of the country. In most western countries, university research is closely collaborated with the Department of Agriculture and aimed at finding solutions to real problems."

"Participatory research must be a priority. Agricultural research cannot be done in a sterile laboratory without a consideration to the ground situation. Technology has to be easily transferable."

Dr. Fernando stressed the need to have an intermediary body that would link research and farmers. "I think such an institution should be semi-government for the sake of efficient functioning."

Prof. Hirimburegama admits that slowly the dons are changing their attitudes on public service through universities. The Colombo University launched a novel agricultural scheme, with other state agencies, in arid Hambantota where tissue cultured banana plants are sold to area farmers. The Post Graduate Institute for Agriculture at Peradeniya has begun working hand-in-hand with the Department of Agriculture on several key areas. "All this time collaboration was done on an unofficial level, on a friendship basis," said Prof. Gunasena, Director, Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture. "Things will change from now on."

But are these changes coming a little too late for Sri Lanka.

Technology in agriculture advanced in leaps 30 years so ago by micro-propagation methods, cell-cultures, manipulation of plant genes to produce better crops giving better and faster yields, pest and disease resistance etc. While many western and developing countries absorbed agri-technology greedily, maximising use of land, water and resources, Sri Lanka was one of those countries that lagged behind, except, perhaps in the field of rice research. Israel perfected controlled-environment agriculture, growing perfect fruits and vegetables under greenhouse conditions in arid desert land. Thailand expanded their agri-business hugely, research supporting a willing farmer community.

Blessed with year round good weather, we may have thought sophisticated systems of cultivation beyond our requirement. But with increased population, shrinking agricultural land, loss of fertility and a looming food shortage in the world the need for better and more efficient food producing methods is greater than ever.

But with increased globalization making it cheaper to import certain foods, gradual privatisation of agriculture and the removal of most traditional protection mechanisms, can Sri Lankan farmers compete to win?

Jayawardena said that in a global market, Sri Lankan agri producers would find it difficult to compete because the scale of operation is not large enough to bring cost of production down. High cost of production is a salient factor throughout Sri Lankan agriculture.

Much technology does not translate to practical use due to the cost factor. Bio-pesticides look like the perfect answer to chemicals, but as yet a local farmer cannot afford to use it on his crop. Tissue cultured plants may be better for a number of reasons but they would certainly cost more than the normal plant stock available in the market. Moreover they are not readily available for farmers.

The issues are numerous. The lack of cohesion between research, farming and marketing is the most obvious. Subsidiary problems of quality, commercial level production, availability of good planting material, post harvest technology, storage, transportation, packaging and finally reaching a retail market all haunt today's agri-businessman.

All this translates to a simple fact. Lack of policy and direction. Despite a long tradition of agriculture research and huge implementing agency, Sri Lanka has fallen behind in the race.

Point of view

Where was peace?

I spent two days at the BMICH recently at a semi- nar organized by the SLAAS titled 'Dimensions of the Crisis'. I took for granted that the seminar was going to be about peace which has been for so long on our mind. I assumed also that this approach would be detached, non-emotional - as befits intellectuals and especially non-political.

The seminar tuned out to be one open to the public at large. Perhaps because some of the papers had been written years before and some of the speakers did not show up and the issues dealt with had been filling the daily press for such a long time, in the two days I attended, there was hardly any fresh light thrown on the crisis. There was rather heated re-iteration of old arguments in various shades, re-affirming traditional stands.

Perhaps the one new dimension of our ethnic crisis which I discovered in the seminar, was the academic dimension,the fact that our ethnic crisis runs right through academe. For the refreshing interventions, like the one by the Ven. Prof. Bellanvilla Wimalaratana Thero, I am grateful to SLAAS which to my little knowledge broke new ground in organising this seminar on such a burning, current issue. It is encouraging to see an organization of such prestige and competence, coming to grips with the daily problems of ordinary people.

My first reflection on the seminar was that the search for peace and for the conditions and ways of achieving peace was evidently not on the seminar agenda. It surfaced only in a couple of interventions at the last of the 13 sessions in the late evening of Sunday 5th. It was as if the peace doves were trying to make an appearance but were immediately shot down. In the heat of the exchanges that followed I had to go and I do not know whether the dove survived.

I do not really know the nature and tradition of SLAAS and the particular objectives of the seminar. Nevertheless I was reminded of Lord Buddha's simile of the wounded man from whose body it was urgent to extract the arrow to save him: all argumentation had to be set aside.

In the seminar, it seemed to me, nobody even mentioned the wounded nation as such. I had pictured all concerned academics in consultation around the sick-bed of our nation, exploring all the aspects and dimensions of the crisis to identify its real nature and causes, pooling all their knowledge, experience and attention to agree on a course of treatment to save the patient. But the patient was never brought in. We spoke as people who already knew the problems and the answers and now re-stated them to our satisfaction. Lord Buddha, of course, would rush to remove the arrow from the wounded man. But he was the enlightened, compassionate One.

I was amazed to realize that we have to put up with the fact that even in academe there are people who do not want the peace that comes from the resolution of the conflict but only the peace achieved by defeating and eliminating the enemy.

Fr. M.Catalano S.J.

Wrights and wrongs!

Thoughts from London

During a visit to Sri Lanka last April, Elizabeth Wright, head of the BBC's Asia and Asia-Pacific region took umbrage at critics who accused the Beeb( as it is known among the journalistic cognoscenti) of bias and distortion.

I was reminded of Ms. Wright's plea of journalistic innocence and political propriety when I read two stories the other day. One was a BBC report from Colombo published on its website and an extract of a United Nations Special Rapporteur's report on human rights in the UK.

But let me first deal with Elizabeth Wright who felt wronged at the accusations thrown at the BBC's Sinhala programme Sandesaya.

In an interview with this newspaper which was headlined "If we are biased cite cases," says BBC's Asia head. Ms. Wright was referring particularly to the demonstrations held in London earlier against the Sandesaya programme.

What was this meaningless hoo-ha, she seemed to say, against Sandesaya. The protestors could not cite a specific instance of bias, she said, as though that clinched the argument.

This, according to the Wright theory, vindicated the BBC's lack of partiality.

Had she stopped at this she might have got away with such spurious reasoning. Are listeners expected to sit down each time with pen and paper and immediately note down any apparent transgression of the BBC's honoured credo of journalistic objectivity? Not just note down date and time, mind you but the exact words that are said to convey bias. As though only words convey bias!

Carried away by her own eloquence, Ms. Wright went further than she should have- a very dangerous habit for a broadcaster as well as a diplomat, for she seems to have come to the Beeb after five years at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I refer to this deliberately for there is an important connection between the FCO and the BBC which most foreign listeners/viewers are not aware of and one I will take up perhaps on another occasion.

Elizabeth Wright says "it was general criticism, which is not new," the argument being that if it is not new then it must be false. If there was anything false it is such logic. The fact that the argument of bias is old could surely also mean that bias still persists and hence the need to reiterate the charge.

"In the BBC, we don't have views. We report both sides of an argu-ment.....Other people's views are often unacceptable. Nevertheless, we have to get both sides of an argument."

Let's see how that is done. But before that there is a slight matter that puzzles me. If the BBC does not have views how is it that it finds "other people's views often unacceptable"? If you reject arguments in support of censorship of the British media, for example, it must surely be because you hold contrary or different views. You might express it, but one still does have views surely.

I don't know exactly what the head of the Asia- Pacific region does or how far its mandate goes in the BBC's scheme of things. But since Ms. Wright has raised general principles regarding the BBC's code of conduct, I'd like to refer to a report titled "Sri Lanka accused of rights abuse" by Alastair Lawson in Colombo which appeared on the BBC website on July 18.

The story is about the visit of two British MPs of the European Parliament to Sri Lanka and their strong criticism of the government's human rights record. If one was to apply the Wright (not right) logic then this criticism should also be dismissed summarily as there is nothing new in it.

Anyway the two MEPs, Richard Howitt and Robert Evans say not enough has been done to protect the civilians caught up in the war against the Tigers.

Of course the Tigers are rebels,like the Basque "separatists" and others.But to the BBC, the IRA, somehow, remain terrorists.

After a visit to Vavuniya and having met some displaced Tamil civilians, Mr. Howitt fires his howitzer and the BBC faithfully records the piece- de-resistance of his observations. He believes that the plight of displaced people was "as bad as the suffering endured by civilians in Sierre Leone and Chechnya".

Now any journalist worth even a pinch of salt would have asked whether Mr. Howitt had been to either place, how he was able to make this comparison etc.

But not a word from the BBC, mind you. And after all these accusations, one would have expected, in keeping with BBC's journalistic ethics that the story would carry some comments from the Sri Lanka Government or an official response. Even after saying that these two MPs met government members and will be reporting back to the European parliament, there is not a single word in the whole story about the other side.

"We report both sides of an argument" Elizabeth Wright had vouched. Pray where? Surely this is elementary journalism.

On July 14 there was another story about the impending arrival of the MPs in which one of the British members is identified as Richard Hewitt. So who was in Colombo?

Not that it matters, Howitt by any other name would smell, I suppose, as one sided as the BBC. Mr. Howitt who appears so concerned about human rights violations by Sri Lanka-and doubtless there are violations which should be condemned- seems to have taken a vow of silence on the UN rapporteur's sharp criticisms of human rights in the UK. And Robert Evans who must necessarily cultivate the heavy concentration of Tamil voters in his constituency, does not appear to have uttered a word either. At least I have still to read of any great pronouncements on Britains' human rights record.

How did the BBC, which is so animated about human rights violations elsewhere, report Rapporteur Abid Hussein's comments about human rights in Britain? At length? In 10 words? Or ignored it altogether?

Here is another example for BBC's wunder kinder, also from Ms. Wright's Asia-Pacific region. On August 4, BBC carried a story on its website from a correspondent named Rupert Wingfield-Hayes about a leadership struggle in the "spiritual movement" Falun Gong. Apparently a Hong Kong businesswoman is claiming the leadership. In the story there is a subhead "Highest of Buddhas". Who does it refer to? The woman concerned? She makes no such claim. The Falun Gong does not claim to be Buddhist and yet from nowhere comes this reference. Is the BBC claiming that this Belinda Pang is the "Highest of the Buddhas".

When Hong Kong was under British rule the denial of God and the truth of the Holy Bible was blasphemous. It seems that the BBC has no respect for other religious leaders.

Elizabeth Wright should ponder what would have happened had the subhead read "Highest of the Allahs".

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents