Uva farmers flying high

By Feizal Samath

"There is a huge demand from SriLankan Airlines for vegetables and fruits produced by farmers from the Uva region," says Dr Asoka Kasturiarachchi, assistant resident representative at the United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) office in Colombo.

Under an UNDP-led programme to attack poverty, increase growth and help the poor to participate in the country's growth cycle, more than 500 farmers from Uva are producing high quality vegetables, fruits, pesticides - free rice and bees' honey to local and export markets. The programme provides technical assistance to identify products for niche markets, transfer of technology to produce high quality products, assistance in packaging, labelling and costing and to form partnerships with buyers, producers and their associates.

More than 80 percent of the 1.2 million people in the Uva region in the central part of Sri Lanka are poor farmers. "It is the poorest region in the country, outside the north and the east," added Kasturiarachchi. The farmers are not only producing for local and foreign markets but also selling them in the market in a direct producer-seller linkage helped by government agencies, private companies, non-governmental organizations and the UNDP. In the past, most NGO programmes for the rural poor dealt with production only while neglecting the marketing aspects. 

Farmers lacked the knowledge to sell straight to market - instead going through middlemen - and not reaping the benefits. 

"In our case we have looked at the marketing structures first, helped the poor gain access to these markets and then looked at production needs," said the UNDP rural poverty expert. "We are looking at a holistic approach of development. 

We want to create linkages between producers and markets in a direct and transparent way so that the value addition goes to farmers and not private companies or middlemen," he said. 

The Area Based Growth with Equity Programme (ABGEP) was launched in 1998 by UNDP and the government to attack unemployment and poor income opportunites, which according to a UNDP briefing note, are the main causes of poverty in regional areas.

It said the US$ 4 million programme is the first in Sri Lanka and probably the world, bringing together the International Labour Organisation, United Nations Volunteers, government ministries and the Uva Provincial Council. 

ABGEP has been implemented in the Uva province as a pilot project in which communities are taught social mobilization methods, empowerment, participatory development and income generation to encourage people to develop farming and non-farming income opportunities. "We are eventually raising and improving their standard of living," says D.W. Dassanayake, Provincial Director of Agriculture at the Uva Provincial Council. "This programme is a catalyst for change in the lifestyles of the people and in their development. 

"He said they had set up forward contract systems between farmers and five to six big buyers, one of whom was SriLankan Airlines. "The demand is growing from the airlines for fruits and vegetables and we need to expand production."

Dassanayake said they were setting up 20 new greenhouses or polytunnels to expand production of fruits and vegetables. Other UNDP officials said Uva farmers were producing high quality and high yielding vegetables like capsicum, tomatoes, beans, etc using protected agriculture techniques and selling to niche markets.

Jayasekera Manatunga is a farmer and also a "collector" of vegetables and fruits based at Bandarawela in the Uva province. He supplies to a top Sri Lankan supermarket chain and has enormously benefited from the UNDP programme.

Manatunga says he has applied for a loan under the programme to buy a lorry and set up a complete stores complex. "I want to expand my storage capacity which will then increase output of my network of farmers." In addition to his own plot of land where he grows rice and vegetables, Manatunga has a network of more than 200 farmers who supply him vegetables and fruits on a weekly basis. Having studied packing and marketing techniques under UNDP experts, Manatunga and his 12 employees pack the produce into cartons, boxes and polythene bags and send it to supermarkets in Colombo."The UNDP programme has helped me to develop proper marketing techniques," said Manatunga, who pays a higher price to farmers for high quality produce. "We are particular about quality and only the best vegetables and fruits are sent to the supermarkets."

He sends two lorry-loads of 2,000 to 3,000 kgs of vegetables and fruits per week and is hoping for the UNDP loan, through the Uva provincial council, to improve his business. "If I develop, the farmers would also develop," he added. Uva provincial council director Dassanayake said that earlier this month, farmers began selling pesticide-free rice and quality bees' honey to the Cooperate Whole sale Establishment (CWE), the government purchasing arm running the largest supermarket chain in the country. 

The farmers, operating through the Uva Agricultural Marketing Initiative, plan to sell 200,000 kg of such rice during the October to February rice season to CWE outlets. "The CWE also wants a lot of vegetables and cereals which we are supplying," Dassanayake said. That micro irrigation schemes under ABGEP have reduced cost of production as there is less water used, no wastage, less fuel and higher yields to rice farmers who are now using the same fields to produce vegetable and fruits during the off season. UNDP's Kasturiarachchi said farmers were being encouraged to grow in greenhouses which allows all year round production. "In a controlled environment, you can supply the required amount of nutrients for the plants to grow throughout the year. The plants are not subject to the vagaries ofweather and pests, "he said, adding that though the capital outlay is initially high, farmers are helped through credit offered by commercial banks. 

To leave or not to.....

By Dr. C. Ananda Grero 

Malicious desertion can be divided into two categories, simple desertion and constructive desertion. In the former, the deserting spouse (either wife or husband) leaves the matrimonial home. In the latter, the innocent spouse (the one who is not at fault) is obliged or compelled to leave the matrimonial house as a direct result of the expulsive acts of the other. In both instances of malicious desertion, two important ingredients should be present, namely, the fact of desertion and the intention of putting an end to the marriage. These two ingredients should be established at the trial in order to grant a decree of divorce . Husband 'A' took his wife 'B' to her mother's house and left her there, accusing her of quarrelling with him. Subsequently he wrote a letter to the mother-in-law stating, "I do not want your adulterous daughter any longer."

In this instance 'A' the husband had shown a deliberate intention to put an end to the marriage and the fact of desertion too is well established. If 'B' the wife, sues her husband 'A', on the grounds of malicious desertion she can succeed. However mere separation of spouses is not enough, unless there is clear evidence of the fact of separation and the intention to put an end to the marriage. In the case of Rajeswararanee Vs Sunthararasa (64 New Law Reports at page 366) the husband and wife lived apart from one another, but the reason for this separation was the inability to find suitable accommodation, that is, a place acceptable for both parties. Although they were anxious to resume their conjugal life, each was unwilling to live with the other's relatives and consequently they had lived apart. The husband filed action in the District Court against his wife to get a decree of divorce on the ground of constructive malicious desertion on the part of his wife. The wife prayed for the dismissal of the husband's action. The District Judge after trial gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff husband. The defendant wife appealed to the Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court that malicious desertion on the part of the wife was not proved and the court set aside the judgment of the District Judge and dismissed the husband's case. In the case of Wickremasuriya Vs Samarasuriya (68 New Law Reports at page 255), the wife sued the husband to get a divorce on the ground of constructive malicious desertion on the allegation of acts of cruelty by her husband which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and to reside with her parents. The District Judge who heard the case gave judgment in favour of the wife, the plaintiff and granted a divorce. The husband appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court. The said court dismissed his appeal. Then the defendant appealed to the Privy Council. It was held that continuous harassment over dowry and ill-treatment and neglect of the wife during her pregnancy and shortly after the child was born were sufficient grounds to hold that his wife was entitled to a dissolution of marriage. The appeal of the defendant husband was dismissed.

Desertion is regarded as a continuing offence and as such the courts require the proof of the fact of the permanent state of the alleged desertion. Then only will the court grant a divorce on the ground of malicious desertion. The law permits parties to reconcile and to resume the marriage relationship. If reconciliation is not possible, the last resort left to the innocent spouse is to file an action to get a dissolution of the marriage. In the case of Muthumarasamy Vs Parameshwary (78 New Law Reports Page 488) it was observed by Justice Sharvananda (later Chief Justice) that termination of desertion can take place by supervening intention to reconcile, along with the bona fide (honest) approach to the deserted spouse (wife or husband as the case may be) with a view to resumption of life together. There can be an instance where the wife due to acts of cruelty on the part of the husband, leaves the matrimonial home and voluntarily returns after sometime to the husband, and wants to resume the marital life, but the husband refuses to reconcile with her. She has no alternative, but to leave him. In such circumstances it is the husband who is guilty of malicious desertion and not the wife. There can be disagreement between the spouses and this may lead to verbal abuse by the husband of the wife. Unless in the case of abuse occasional heated arguments and even abuse between the two spouses could not justify one of them leaving the matrimonial home and thereafter filing an action for divorce. 

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents