Impact of contradictory policies on coconut production

Chandrasiri Nanayakkara

Year after year the coconut supply in the market for consumption as well as for industries is reducing. The yield is going down. The total nut production is not sufficient to cater to the demand. As a result price increases, reduce the produce exports and discourage the traditional and emerging coconut based industries with a lot of negative externalities.

To increase the yield regular fertilising of the crop is compulsory. On this, the cultivator is assisted by giving a subsidy of Rs. 7,000 per ton of fertiliser by the Government. This scheme is implemented through Coconut Cultivation Board (CCB) whose mandate is to develop the coconut cultivation mobilising its field staff.

In Sri Lanka the most neglected crop is coconut. This is true with the home gardens, small holdings as well as large estates. Though the gross acreage under coconut is rerecorded as 1,093,197 acres in 2002 the net acreage is decreasing drastically. The reasons are, environmental, physiological, managerial and destruction by man.

Since last year issue of fertiliser for coconut is taken over by the CCB. In 2007 they were able to distribute only 10,000 tonnes. In 2003 it was 38,958 tonnes, a reduction of 75%. The increase of prices of imported fertilisers is also another factor facing the grower. The prices increased from 1996 to 2008 is as follows. (See table 1)

The price of urea in the year 2005 was Rs. 10,500 and increased to Rs. 62,200 per tonne in 2008, an increase of 492%. This is unavoidable because we import it but we have to find local substitutes. For MoP we have little or no locally available substitutes.

But for urea there are a lot of substitutes and are of animal and plant origin. The excreta of farm animals such as cow dung, goat dung, poultry droppings are animal origin.

One can say that this is bulky and need to transport from animal husbandry farms at a cost. Then we have to consider the plant originated ones such as green manure which could be cultivated in the land itself. The most suitable ones are Gliricidia and Pueraria.

The nutrient contents of some organic manure are as follows. (See table 2) This analysis of nutrients shows that all the organic/green manure are rich in nitrogen. Hence we can partially or completely substitute urea which is the artificial source of nitrogen mainly using Gliricidia, Pueraria and compost produced in situ with least cost. It is recommended that 20-30 kg of above items per palm could substitute urea completely.

The above organic/green manure increases the microbes in the soil, loosens and makes it friable, increases the water holding capacity and releases nutrients slowly. The urea is a pollutant of soil and waterways but green manure plants create a micro climate and improve the environment.

The Gliricidia could be grown as live fences, along road sides and open spaces. Considering its advantages the Government has declared Gliricidia as a new plantation crop and a subsidy is given by through the CCB to cultivate it in coconut lands. Pueraria is a vigorous creeper that covers the entire land surface and is recommended by the CRI.

What is the success of fertiliser distribution by CCB in 2007? The CCB has become the monopoly of issuing the fertiliser. In 2007, it reduced the quantity applied by 75%. Has it facilitated the timely application? Has it made the purchasing process easier to cultivators?

Are they having enough vehicles to transport regional fertiliser, stores to store and have enough manpower to handle this trade? Are they ready to supply fertiliser for Yala 2008 (now it is May)? Answers to all these are negative.

The Yala rains are subsiding. Though the CCB is issuing permits they do not have fertiliser with them. They do not know when they could issue fertiliser for this year. They have no idea of prices.

While encouraging the planting of green manures to substitute urea, the CCB made it compulsory to buy urea with other fertilisers on the recommended ratio. Otherwise the growers are not entitled for the subsidy. At the same time it offers subsidy to grow Gliricidia in plantations. This is a contradictory policy situation. Are they discouraging the use of organic manures and force the grower to buy urea at a high cost?

The Mahinda Chintanaya encourages more and more use of organic and green manure to enrich our soils and discourage the use of urea, which is a pollutant. To save foreign exchange in a situation of escalating urea price we have to promote more and more use of organic manure.

The grower does not know that the delay in issue of fertiliser for 2008 is due to red tapes of the treasury, Plantation Ministry or CCB in this crisis situation of short supply of coconut.

What are the short and long term impacts of all these? It adds another factor to discourage the grower and reduce coconut production further down in the future.

The policies are formulated and implemented to improve or sustain (at least) the current situation. They should contribute to the development of the sector.

If expected results are not realised after implementation of policies, those policies should be corrected before further damage is done. Hence these suggestions should be considered for future policy changes for the sake of the coconut sector.

* Revise the subsidy on the basis of proportionate increase of fertiliser prices.

* Let the CCB handle the activities in the field on cultivation rather than involve in fertiliser trade.

* Allow the fertiliser traders to handle their business competitively and efficiently and rectify any malpractices.

* Draw special attention by the CCB to promote green manure production in coconut plantations. (The writer is an Agricultural Economist and a member of the Coconut Growers' Association)