A drought saga

As the drought continues to cause concern, there are several schools of thought being put forward, with farmers blaming the Government and the Government passing the buck to Mother Nature. However, a recent report released by think-tank Verite Research puts a new spin on the popular theory that changing weather patterns are to the main culprit for the Rs. 3.6 billion “welfare” package to be handed out on public funds.

It pointed out in its recent analysis on the drought situation that the media reportage suggests that farmers are clearly holding the Government responsible for the water shortages they are facing along with the lack of rains. This organisation went onto say this has manifested in the form of demanding compensation as well as some unsubstantiated allegations about business and political interests aggravating the problem. The Government’s defence, strongly articulated by Minister Wimal Weerawansa, has been to baulk at the idea of being held responsible for the vagaries of nature. This defence, however, is disingenuous.

The report recalls that droughts and floods occur in agricultural areas at regular intervals and the need for a better water-management system is what sparked off a project known as “Ten Thousand Tanks” – launched in August 2004 by the JVP, which had then joined with the SLFP to defeat the UNP Government. The project soon ran into controversy for not following tender procedures, not heeding the powers of provincial councils, and on various other allegations. However, less than a year after launch, the same Minister Weerawansa, speaking then for the JVP, claimed that nearly 1,000 tanks had already been renovated.

Verite Research pointed out that afterwards, the project appears to have been placed in cold storage: because, as recently as July 2011, the Government suggested that the balance 9,000 tanks remain to be built and would be completed at the rate of 1,000 per year – in 2020. However, the Budget presented in November 2011 gave no indication that the money was following the rhetoric. This gap between rhetoric and action might be systematic.

Completing the 10,000 tanks was also a major platform of the first instalment of the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’ in 2005. The second instalment of the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’ in 2010 made no mention of the old tanks, but promised several specific new water supply projects and technologies (starting with the drip irrigation system) to solve the irrigation problems of the farmer. And then, history has repeated itself.

The report also calls on the media to highlight points where the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’ has not lived up to its promises, such as in the instance of drought management and farmer relief, including the establishment of a pension scheme that has been under prolonged discussion. Inconsistent policies result in massive wastage for the public as well as increased hardship in absorbing the fallout from low harvests and welfare packages distributed by the State. The fact that the ruling party is mixing elections with welfare also underpins this tenuous situation.

Rs. 3.6 billion is the cost that has been put forward, but as actual damage estimates come in, the amount could increase. However, given the large number of families affected by the drought, the assistance per unit is minor. Giving help that can be felt on the ground and launching sustainable policies for drought minimisation continue to be massive challenges for Sri Lanka.