      |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Those hand tractors promised to farmers
Asinine politicians and bovine bureaucrats
By Milroy RatwatteHistory is full of experiences of countries who wanted to industrialise quickly to employ their thousands at the expense of agriculture. It also illustrates in no uncertain terms what happens when that bubble bursts and the people have to pay through their noses for the little food that is available as a result of all the impediments put in the path of the farmers.
We may end up with a similar story if we do not take a hard look at what is happening on the ground. An urbane smarter Minister of Trade seems to be taking the upper hand over the rustic from Gampola — much to the dismay of millions who toil so hard on the soils of this country.
All governments profess to be kind and generous to the toilers. But at the receiving end how does this work? Let me relate an experience.
The Farmers Association of which I am the president was promised a two wheel hand tractor in 1992 by the Dept. of Agrarian Services. We agreed to invest in one for two good reasons. Labour was getting expensive and scarce.
A unit was offered at Rs. 68,000.00. Rs. 16,000.00 was to be our first instalment with the balance to be paid in 36 to 48 months. For the first time in their experience our members went through the process of preparing a feasibility study and a project report, which they did enthusiastically.
By the end of 1992 the tractors did appear at the local Agrarian Services office. But to our utmost disappointment we found that the models sent to this hill country station were too large for our terraces. Some fool of a decision maker at the Ministry of Agriculture, no doubt, had goofed.
Naturally, we could not and did not take delivery of what we so hopefully anticipated. Representations were made to the relevant authorities, to no avail.
None in this region wanted those machines and they idled in the garages of the Agrarian Services office gathering dust and rust for the next few years until the P.A. government came in.
A few months into office the new minister came visiting us. At a discussion I appraised him of the fiasco. He promised us a solution and instructed the local officials to transfer those machines to the NCP. It took another year almost for this to be done, as a question arose as to who was to bear the cost of transport from Badulla to Polonnaruwa. So much for farmers and the Japanese gifts!
In the meantime our costs of production escalated while the government and its unsympathetic Minister of Trade has been importing ‘cheap rice’ from outside. Adding insult to injury the powers that be have been taking the producers to task for producing food at a costlier rate than their foreign counterparts.
For almost 4 years we heard little of tractors. Then around three months ago we were summoned to Sethsiripaya to take over a machine. It was indeed a pleasant surprise. After the festivities which were naturally telecast, were over we brought our possession to Badulla in a departmental vehicle having paid a hire charge of Rs. 1300.00. The Kubota however is still locked up in a room at the local Agrarian Services office because further problems developed.
After having negotiated for six years and dutifully paid the first instalment plus transport costs we are now being told that
(a) We should pay an additional Rs. 9000.00 to the first instalment as the machine’s worth has been revised upwards from Rs. 68,000 to Rs. 98,000.
(b) We should have a minimum of 50 paid up members in our association who are contributories to the purchase.
We farmers are quite conversant with the old nature saying "gahen vatuna minihata gona anna wagai". But when that gona is a state agency it is hard to take. We are at a loss to comprehend how equipment given at such generous concessions by the Japanese are sold so exorbitantly to poor people who need them desperately. A Rs. 30,000.00 increase is more than we bargained for.
Somebody who estimated that a single hand tractor could plough the fields of 50 persons within the short space of time available from the date water is released to the channels to transplant has really got his marbles in the wrong places. Even if it is possible in the plains of the NCP and the Eastern Province it certainly is not possible among the terraces of our district.
The upshot of all this is that we still have no solution to our problem. The cost of production will be higher this season as the on baffaloe hirer has raised his rates. The precious machine which could reduce that is locked up safely where it should not be.
It is indeed sad that the hopes and aspirations of most administrations get so diluted and fuzzy as they go down the line. What ultimately ends up at grassroots levels could be quite the opposite of incentives.
Between the lines
Sonia is the key factor
By Kuldip NayarThe political scene in India has seldom been more uncertain as it is today. The government can fall at any time. Still that time can stretch to months. There is no viable alternative in sight. Nor does Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who emerged as the most important person after elections in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram and Rajasthan, seem to be in a hurry. It looks as if she will keep the threat hanging. Her statement that Congress is ready for a fresh poll is enough of an indication.
The tragic part is that the BJP, which leads the coalition, is so demoralised that it is functioning like a lame-duck government. The allies are in tact and they have reiterated their support to the BJP. But the party has lost nerves. It, like the allies, realises that it is a long journey to cover the distance up to the general election in 2003.
In such a frame of mind, it is no surprise that the government should look clueless and the BJP rudderless. What to do and how to retrieve the image are the problems, which the party and the coalition face. They present a pathetic picture. As an activity of sorts, a whispering campaign has already begun against Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. "He has not recovered from defeat," a top BJP leader says. This may well be a justification for the hush-hush demand that Home Minister L. K. Advani or Defence Minister George Fernandes should replace him.
Such a talk has only increased the uncertainty. The bureaucrats, who have a sensitive antenna, have already lengthened the red tape. The economy has crumpled. Businessmen and industrialists have thinned out in the BJP camp like rats leaving a sinking ship. And queues outside Sonia Gandhi’s residence and the Congress office are increasing beyond proportion.
Will there be a mid-term poll? This is the question asked by MPs in the lobby, journalists in the press gallery and others outside parliament. Nobody knows the precise answer. However, one thing is clear. No Lok Sabha member wants a mid-term poll. And whatever the permutation and combination discussed, the bottom line is that there should be no fresh polls. Yet most of them have a nagging feeling that they cannot avoid them for long. The BJP anticipates the next election some time after the budget session that begins in February.
All eyes have turned towards Sonia Gandhi. But she has not yet decided whether to pull down the government or assemble an alternative. There is no doubt she wants to pick up the pieces if and when the coalition breaks up. But how to initiate the process without Congress coming into the picture is the problem. Reportedly AIADMK chief Jayalalitha was sounded on withdrawing support to the coalition. But she wanted to know: "Then what?" She believes that Congress wants to use her, but not to pay the price.
It seems that Sonia Gandhi is less and less inclined to accept a non-Congress government for the rest of the Lok Sabha term. Her advisers have succeeded in convincing her that even the support to the Deve Gowda and the Inder Gujral governments was wrong. Had Congress not done so, the party would have emerged by this time supreme. She has begun to believe this theory. But this may well be part of tactics. If she wants the BJP, a party that she hates the most, to continue to head the government, why should she be expressing regrets over the two Janata Dal governments, which were ideologically near to Congress?
Sonia Gandhi’s immediate attention is reportedly focused on how to cut Mulayam Singh of the Samajwadi Party in UP and Laloo Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar, to size. She realises that without bagging UP and Bihar, which have 139 seats in the Lok Sabha, Congress cannot go very far. In fact, Sonia is said to be elucidating the thesis that the country to a two-party system, no one coming in between.
If it is so, she is mistaken. Some regional parties have come to stay because they draw their strength from grassroots. The success Congress has achieved in the four states is because there is no regional party in the area. Moreover, she should not forget that people have voted against the BJP, not for Congress, which is yet to attain popularity.
Congress should not, however, make much of the success. The party will begin to be on test now. Sonia Gandhi will be under examination. At present, she is like the blank screen that many people have projected their fondest image on. Let down by Vajpayee and the BJP, they are increasingly pinning their hopes on her and Congress. She is the most important person on the Indian scene because she has seized the initiative from others.
Still very little is known about her and her views. Where does she stand on foreign affairs, economic matters or social problems? That she is not parochial is clear. But when she is mentioned as the country’s Prime Minister if Congress comes to power, there is need to find out her opinion on different subjects. So far, the nation is familiar with her as the traditionally headcovered Indian nari (woman). She is a tactician and speaks in general terms. But what is her approach to the country’s burning problems like Kashmir, Assam and the Northeast?
In an interview she has expressed her views on Centre-State relations. She is in favour of taking over the state governments, a step from which the Janata Dal and the BJP have refrained. Asked whether the centre under Congress would take over any state government, she said it would be decided on "case by case" basis. That means she is not opposed to Article 356, which gives the Centre powers to dismiss an elected state government. This reflects the same old absolutism of Congress.
As the Congress president, she has spanned differences in the party. It is now coherent and has persons of different ideas and persuasions, accepting what she says. Maharashtra leader Sharad Pawar or Rajasthan’s popular figure, Rajesh Pilot, are no exceptions. She has also proved to be a shrewd observer of Indian politics. Sensing the need of bringing back Muslims, Dalits and the backward to the fold of Congress _ they were once the backbone of the party _ Sonia Gandhi has gone about wooing them methodically. She has also announced reservation for women and a better deal for the Dalits and the backward. Recently, she wrote to Ali Mian, a leading Muslim theologist, regretting the raid at his residence. (He is the one who gave the fatwa that Muslims should withdraw their children from the schools, which make the singing of Vande Mataram and Saraswati Vandana compulsory).
It was former Prime Minister V. P. Singh who had enticed Muslims, backward and the like from Congress. After his exit they have been a non-BJP force, siding with secular and regional parties. Some have even strayed into the BJP. Congress is beginning to win them back by giving them a platform in the party, which was theirs at one time.
Of course, this has been at the expense of the third force, which appears to have been decimated. Still it presents an alternative to both Congress and the BJP that the nation requires. Tomorrow when Congress comes to power, the BJP will be the alternative. The non-performance of Congress may bring back the BJP with a vengeance. Then the latter will know no compromise, no accommodation. It will be a pure Hindutva. Not a good proposition for a democratic country, which takes pride in its pluralistic society.
Enviroment Health hazard in Mattakkuliya
The canal that never flows!
By Danielle BoekelLiving in clean surroundings with fresh air and immaculately kept streets is but a distant dream for most residents of Colombo. But for a section of people residing in Sri Wickrama Mawatha, Mattakkuliya, this dream has perhaps proved to be even more distant.
Having to bear with improper garbage disposal, these residents have yet another hazard to face up to - the severely stagnated Sri Wickrama canal.
Water hyacinths and weeds have added to the alarming amount of garbage in this canal which has now become a severe eyesore. Emanating an unbearable stench, the canal is never cleaned posing a grave health hazard to the people of the area, residents said. Countless appeals to the relevant authorities have proved futile. One resident complained that their requests and appeals fall on deaf ears and the people responsible "prefer to wash their hands off than attend to this matter".
In a bid to highlight their plight several residents signed an appeal to the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) seeking a solution to their problem. They did get a reply, but certainly not one that would give them relief. The letter said that the responsibility of cleaning and dredging canals lay with the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation Corporation (SLRDC) and the matter did not come under the purview of the CMC. The authorities did, however, promise to consider a long-term solution of laying an underground drain, "provided funds are available".
Not admitting defeat, the residents carried on with their fight for a cleaner neighbourhood and repeated their appeal, this time to the SLRDC. These residents once again received a reply; once again providing no solution.
The SLRDC replied that they maintained canals handed over by the Irrigation Department and the Canal Development Board and claimed that the grant received from the Treasury for this purpose was "already inadequate". The contents of the letter further stated that the Sri Wickrama canal is not a canal maintained by the Corporation and will have to be maintained by the relevant local authority which in this case, they informed, was the Colombo Municipal Council!
As if to make up for their inability to offer relief to the Sri Wickrama Mawatha residents, the SLRDC too promised they would carry out the necessary dredging "if funds are provided".
"The question now remains to be asked, to whom do we residents go with our problem?", a resident asked. Numerous appeals have been made and letters have been written all bringing them ‘back to square one’. Living in clean surroundings is the right of every tax payer. How much longer will these residents of Sri Wickrama Mawatha have to bear with the smell of the canal and other travails that come with living in unclean surroundings? For now, their breath of fresh air still remains only but a distant dream.
Sharing The Air
by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain
The rich nations are trying to frame the rules for trading in emission quotas. However, the methods being used to allocate these quotas are questionable. The rights and responsibilities of both rich and poor countries must be defined in’ the context of entitlements and also in a way that curb greenhouse gas emissions.Preventing global warming means putting a cap or a limit on the world’s greenhouse gas emissions which are threatening to overheat the Earth and which has the potential to wipe out humanity. But since the current process of economic growth is so intensely linked to the use of fossil fuels which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the world economy is highly unevenly distributed, the key question is: How should this cap on greenhouse gas emissions be shared?
The challenge becomes further compounded when we recognise that controlling greenhouse gas emissions has certain economic costs. Therefore, how do nations deal with global warming in a way that is ecologically effective, that is, effective in controlling global warming and yet equitous and socially just?
The question of who has been or will be responsible for global warming has been repeatedly raised both by industrialised countries and by developing countries. If past and current emissions are taken into account, then industrialised countries are largely responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions. But with economies of developing countries growing rapidly, their future emissions will become very high.
In this regard discussions of the numerous matters that the Kyoto Protocol (KP), hurriedly put together in the wee hours of the last day, left undecided are going to be critical for finding an ecologically effective and yet just and equitous solution for combating global warming.
The KP is a step ahead in the world’s resolve to arrest the problem of human-induced climate change but it falls short on two counts: One, the strategy outlined allows parties to meet their commitments without undertaking substantial greenhouse gas reductions at home and may, therefore, not result in the "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"—the ultimate objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).
Two, even though the strategy outlined does not insist on participation by developing countries, except through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Emissions Trading (ET), it sets the world on a path that does not recognise the atmospheric rights of the current and future generations of developing countries even as it provides the current generations of industrialised countries greenhouse gas entitlements—not based on equity but on the basis of ‘current emissions’—and furthermore, provides developing countries perverse incentives to pollute further.
The two key elements to be used to achieve this objective are firstly, the calculation of emissions of a clearly identified base year, and, secondly, agreed emissions reduction targets in terms of percentages of the emissions in the base year.
Therefore, in the KP numbers game, anything that helps to increase the emissions in the base year, especially because of activities that have since ceased or reduced, immediately gives the country a head start. For instance, Australia had high emissions because of deforestation in 1990 and since this deforestation has already stopped, it can claim to have reduced its emissions since 1990.
And emissions trading (ET), joint implementation (JT) and clean development mechanism (CDM), further provide opportunities to borrow ‘emissions reduction’ from other countries where ‘emissions reduction’ is already taking place because of a slowing down of the economy, like Russia, for instance, or from those countries where reducing emissions is cheaper in the short-run, like developing countries:
For developing countries, which will one day enter this same number game, their emissions in the base year, which is yet to be set for them, would be very important. If a developing country were to move towards energy efficiency in a big way, then it would already have an energy efficient economy by the time its base year is set and then high percentage reductions on that base year would be not only difficult to achieve but also expensive.
On the contrary, if that country were to continue using high-emission technologies and fuels, then by the time its base year is set, it could easily accept ‘high percentage reductions’ and look good in front of the world whereas those who have already taken advance and therefore, contributed proportionately less to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, would look bad in front of the world.
The CDM has been identified by the KP as a mechanism for North-South co-operation but the KP itself says that the purpose of CDM is to allow developing countries "...to assist parties in Annex 1 in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments...".
One can, therefore, ask: Why does the KP see no other role for developing countries in combating climate change other than just helping Annex I countries to meet their commitments under the protocol?
Developing countries will, thus, not get any long-term benefits from participation in a CDM process. The only existing rationale for JI, one that is being globally pushed at the moment, is the one that was outlined by the government of Norway in the early 1990s.
The Norwegian government had argued that cutting future carbon dioxide emissions in industrialised countries will be more expensive than cutting future carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries. This is because developing countries are using outdated technologies which are very energy-inefficient whereas developed countries are already using very energy efficient technologies. .
Even in the rationale for JI with developing countries is accepted, there are several serious practical problems. Firstly; there is the economic question. If developing countries accept JI, then all that they are doing is to let the cheaper carbon dioxide reduction programmes go to industrialised countries.
Let us assume that JI works and developing countries move towards more energy- efficient technologies. But once they have reached high levels of energy efficiency, industrialised countries would have no economic incentive to invest in developing countries. They would rather invest in their own countries.
And if global warming is still a threat—as it would be, because industrialised countries which are major producers of greenhouse gases, have not taken any action at home—then there will be pressure on developing countries to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions on their own. And by then the costs of cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions will be very high even for developing countries.
Secondly, there is the question of practicality. How will one differentiate when is a more energy-efficient technology being brought into a developing country to cut carbon dioxide emissions and when is it coming simply because foreign or domestic industrialists want to move towards better technology for competitive reasons. There is the danger that companies can use CDM to push all kinds of experimental technologies that may not be economically viable otherwise.
The worst aspect of the KP is that it has already given the heaviest emitters of greenhouse gases, namely, the industrialised countries full entitlements to their heavy ‘current emissions’ minus the small amounts that they are expected to reduce as a percentage of their current emissions. The final level of emissions that industrialised countries are expected to reach in their first commitment period from 2008 to 2012 is described as their ‘assigned amount’.
But, in the KP, this ‘assigned amount’ has gone well beyond being a mere target to be reached. It has been turned into an ‘entitlement’ by giving developed nations full ‘property rights’ over these ‘assigned amounts’. These include: the right of a nation to use the assigned amount; trade any part of the assigned amount it is not going to use; and to bank any part of the assigned amount it is not going to use in the first commitment period for use in future commitment periods.
How then can these difficulties be resolved? The answer lies in equal per capita entitlements which could be built on one or a combination of the following concepts:
The emissions absorbed annually by the global atmospheric sinks could be distributed equally amongst all the people of the world; a long-term per capita emissions convergence target could be identified and each person could be given that as an entitlement; future atmospheric concentration targets for different greenhouse gases could be agreed upon and the national entitlements can be steadily phased in towards a convergence point of equal per capita entitlements over successive commitment periods.
It is obvious that in the future the world will have to accept some common maximum per capita emission for each country in order to deal with global warming. We can’t have a world in which some countries have to freeze their carbon dioxide emissions at one level and other countries at another level. This would mean freezing global inequality.
In sum, what developing countries should not, and nor should industrialised countries expect them to accept, is the principle of trading emissions or, for that matter, international cooperation to prevent climate change which is built on the argument that developing countries provide a lucrative opportunity to reduce emissions cheaply than in industrialised countries.
Trading and cooperation must be built on equitable emission entitlements. Trading cannot simply be carried out to achieve economic efficiency. It must be undertaken in an environment that also promotes ecological efficiency and social efficiency (or social justice). CSE/Down To Earth Features
The rich nations are trying to frame the rules for trading in emission. However, the methods being used to allocate these are questionable. Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain argue that the rights and responsibilities of both rich and poor countries must be carefully defined in the context of entitlements and also in a way that curb greenhouse gas emissions.
