The Hon. (Prof.) L.M. Abeywickrama

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to join the Committee Stage debate on the Heads of Expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Lands and Irrigation. Since morning we have heard many suggestions and admonitions from the Opposition. The issue is this: we previously assumed the Opposition did not know these matters; now we see they knew yet still failed to act. It was the very MPs who today advise us who dismantled the agricultural sector—for example, when they halted chemical fertilizers. We, in universities and research institutes, protested that policy because it would collapse agriculture. They had the ability to correct it at home—telling their leaders and colleagues—yet did not. After agriculture collapsed and fell into a pit, and after we changed the system, now they advise us; we appreciate that.

¶ 02 When we were young, we learned Sri Lanka was “an agricultural country.” There were reasons—we had self-sufficiency in many foods, imported little, and many people proudly lived as farmers. But by arbitrarily banning chemical fertilizers and agro-chemicals, great harm was done, and farmers’ dignity undermined. Today, fewer children choose agriculture because rulers made agriculture unappealing. We have now changed that system. Given the previous system, perhaps the Opposition members could not do what they now ask us to do; going forward, they still will not be able to under this new system, because we have implemented a system change. A team with capability, will, and vision is now in place. Previously, agricultural institutions were fragmented, handed to cronies and relatives, and led by people without vision; those institutions were run down. We have changed that, appointing capable, knowledgeable, visionary leaders. We believe that through this institutional structure we can revive agriculture within a short period.

¶ 03 When we took office last year, agriculture’s contribution to national income had fallen, though about 30% of the population depended on agriculture—yet suffered poverty compared to wage earners. We have progressed through eras—from hunting, to shifting cultivation, to single-season paddy, to two seasons now. But land is limited; to nourish our population we must increase productivity per unit area using new technologies and methods. We are satisfied with the Department of Agriculture—one of the oldest departments, established around 1912—with a highly capable team, and many capable professionals across research institutes and universities. Previously they were not given space to act; agriculture was deliberately run down. Although they developed new varieties, methods, and plant protection strategies, they became disheartened because arbitrary political decisions crippled the sector.

¶ 04 Under our approach, scientists, research institutes, and universities are now being empowered. We believe this will help us reach our goals quickly. We face new challenges: climate change has increased pests and diseases; floods and droughts occur frequently; and other pressures affect agriculture. We must rebuild agriculture while confronting these. In this Budget we have allocated significant resources, and carefully provided funds to priority areas for system reform.

¶ 05 On seeds: a main problem is the lack of quality seeds. Past governments dismantled seed farms, closed them, and fragmented the seed authority, leaving no accountability. Farmers lacked assurance about germination and varietal purity. This was a huge problem. In this year’s Budget, we have allocated substantial funds for the next eight months to develop 29 seed farms.

¶ 06 Regarding the Seed Act: when it was brought (around 2003), there was concern that local seeds would vanish. But through the Seed Act we can put in place programs to provide certified quality seeds to farmers. We intend to implement the Act and ensure guaranteed quality seeds.

¶ 07 We also focus more on research. A country cannot develop without research. Through research we get new varieties and technologies. Although we have institutions for all major crops, with good structures and researchers, funding constraints meant we could not integrate new technologies or release new varieties. We now allocate significant funds for research. Another weakness was the lack of coordination among research institutes, leading to duplication. We have a good institutional structure—e.g., SLCARP and HARTI—to coordinate, allocate funds, and create interactive human platforms to bring research into dialogue and target agriculture’s needs.

¶ 08 Finally, much has been said today about counting wild animals. To many this sounds like a joke, but it is a scientific method used worldwide. It is not mere enumeration; rather, mapping—identifying hotspot areas and focusing interventions. The average lifespan of certain species is about 20 years. This is not about our endemic macaques alone. If past governments, 12 years ago, had intervened, we would not face today’s magnitude. In countries like Australia, even a small number may be culled from ecosystems—something we cannot do here. The problem has escalated, and we now take initial steps with scientific methods to identify where to focus. This is not a simplistic headcount; it is mapping to better understand distributions, so we can craft solutions to agricultural damage in the near term.

¶ 09 Thank you.