|
Boro production
Achieving target is vital for nation
M. Abdul Latif Mondal
Boro harvesting season is approaching fast. The harvesting season of Boro generally starts in the third week of April and continues through May. The ears of corn generally come out between the third week of March and the second week of April depending upon the time of transplantation. Boro crop requires maximum care during this period. Here "care" primarily refers to use of necessary fertilizers, in particular urea, and sufficient supply of water.
Among the three major rice crops (Aus, Aman and Boro), Aman continued to top the list until 1997-98. Food Ministry sources reveal that in 1997-98, Aman production stood at 8.85 million metric ton (mmt) while boro production was 8.14 mmt. In 1998-99, Aman was replaced by boro as the highest producing rice. In the year 1998-99, Aman production was 7.74 mmt while boro production stood at 10.55 mmt. Since then, boro has continued to top the list. In 2005 -06, boro production was 13. 98 mmt while aman production stood at 10.81 mmt. Aus production is on the decline. In the 2006-07, aus production stood at 1.51 mmt against 1.75 mmt in 2005-06 and nearly 2 mmt in 1997-98.
According to Food Ministry sources, production target of food grains (rice and wheat) in 2006-2007 has been set at 32.98 mmt. The crop-wise share of the production target is: aus 2.22 mmt, aman 13.18 mmt, boro 16.74 mmt, and wheat 0.83 mmt. This shows that in 2006-2007 production target of boro alone is higher than the total production target of the other food grains mentioned above.
A successful Boro crop is dependent upon timely availability of inputs such as fertilizers, in particular urea, at reasonable prices at the farmers' level, availability of diesel at affordable price of farmers for use in the shallow tubewells (about 80 per cent of an estimated one million shallow tubewells irrigation pumps are still diesel operated) for irrigation and uninterrupted supply of electricity for running deep tubewells in the command areas.
But, the Boro crop this year has been suffering from short supply of inputs from the beginning of the season. The media reports in January showed how the farmers of the country, particularly in 16 northern districts, commonly known as the granary of the country, faced an acute shortage of urea fertilizer and diesel in the peak plantation period of Boro crop. It appears from the recent reports from the farmers and the media that farmers are not getting required fertilizers, particularly urea, for Boro cultivation in the current season. We see hundreds of farmers queuing for hours before the dealers' shops for urea in different places of the country, particularly in the northern districts. Farmers call it mockery when one farmer gets one sack of urea against his requirement for ten sacks. In some cases, two farmers share one sack of urea. Farmers are erecting barricades in the highways and confining the Upazila Nirbahi officers in their offices demanding adequate supply of fertilizers. Law enforcing agencies have been deployed to prevent any untoward incident.
This author had to go to his village home in a northern district in the fourth week of March. He had the opportunity to visit some Boro fields and talk to some farmers and fertilizer dealers. The farmers were very critical of the government and the dealers for non-availability of required quantity of urea for boro crop. When the author asked a fertilizer dealer about the media reports that two farmers were sharing one sack of urea, he not only confirmed it but added that sometimes four farmers were sharing one sack of urea. He ascribed it to short supply of urea by the authorities against the demand of the dealers.
The question that may arise is: why is Boro crop so important? This may be attributed primarily to the following reasons.
First, available statistics reveal that production of rice, which is the staple food of Bangladesh and provides about 93 per cent of the country's cereal intake and about 75 per cent of the calories in our diet, has not mostly shown increasing trend against the country's annual rate of population growth. In 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, production of food grains stood at 26.75 mmt, 25.90 mmt, 26.69 mmt, 27.44 mmt, 26.13 mmt and 27.59 mmt against the population of 129 million, 131 million, 133 million, 135 million, 137 million, and 140 million respectively. According to agricultural scientists, irrigated agriculture is much more productive than rain-fed agriculture and it is an input to agricultural production, where natural conditions are not favourable. Since boro is an irrigated crop, its yield is higher than that of aman, which is typically sown when the monsoon is on. Higher boro yields aided by necessary inputs will significantly increase total availability of food grain from domestic source.
Second, although production of Aman this year (2006-07) was slightly better than that of last year (2005-06), it failed to reach the target for this year. Against the target of 13.18 mmt, output of Aman, according to preliminary estimates, is expected to stand at 12.8 mmt. Failure of aus and Aman production to reach the target necessitates higher production of Boro to fill up the gap this year.
Third, in recent years, food aid has sharply decreased. While average yearly food aid amounted to 1.6 mmt, 1.2 mmt and 0.93 mmt in the seventies, eighties and nineties respectively, food aid in 2002-03 and 2003-04 stood at 254, 000 tons and 289,000 tons respectively. Available information suggests that food aid has almost dried up now. So, increased Boro production by bringing more areas under this high yielding crop, may help make up the shortage of food aid to a considerable extent.
Fourth, wheat is the second most important cereal in the country. While the demand for wheat is gradually increasing with increasing trend of urbanization, the area under wheat cultivation is shrinking. Our annual requirement of wheat is more than 3 mmt. In 1999-2000, wheat production stood at 1,840,000 tons, which came down to only 730,000 tons in 2005-06. Sources in the government suggest that wheat production in the country this year may not exceed 600,000 tons against the target for 834,000 tons. Higher yield of Boro may compensate the loss in wheat production.
Last but not the least, this year the price of rice has been showing increasing trend since February when aman harvesting was still on. In the first half of March, the price of coarse rice in the retail market was between TK 20 and TK 22 per kg. Available information suggest that price of coarse rice was higher than that of any previous year at that time. The government decision on March 8 to withdraw 5 per cent import duty on rice and wheat and to go for open market sale (OMS) of coarse rice from March 18 at subsidised price has halted the upward trend in the price of coarse rice. But OMS is a short term measure and it cannot be continued for months due to food department's limited budget for the programme and its benefit accruing to a fraction of the urban low income group. The withdrawal of 5 per cent import duty on rice and wheat has encouraged importers to open L/Cs for importing rice mainly from India. But media reports suggest that following the withdrawal of import duty on rice and wheat by the Government of Bangladesh, the business syndicate in India has increased the price of rice to be exported to Bangladesh by $35.50 per ton. So, the increase in the price of Indian rice to be exported to Bangladesh by the Indian business syndicate will take away the benefit deemed to accrue to our consumers from the Bangladesh Government's withdrawal of import duty on rice and wheat.
It appears from the above discussion that farmers of high yielding Boro rice need all sorts of supports, including timely availability of fertilizers, training of farmers on use of fertilizers, availability of diesel for running irrigation pumps, uninterrupted supply of electricity to irrigate boro fields in command areas, for a bumper crop to help meet the nation's food grain requirement.
The writer is a former Secretary to the Government.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
President Bush versus the Senate
Barrister Harun ur Rashid
President Bush is feeling hot in his seat as he struggles against the Democratic-dominated Senate to steer his flawed policy in Iraq. Issuing a stinging challenge to the President the Senate recently approved a spending measure that provided more than $97.5 billion for American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on condition that he ordered troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days and set a goal of removing most US armed forces within a year.
While the President has indicated to veto the bill adopted by the Senate, the Democrats are prepared for a fight and seeks to paint the President as obstinate in the face of broad public sentiment against the botched war.
The Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid of Nevada reportedly said: " He sets the record for undermining the troops more than any President we have ever had" if the President vetoes the bill.
Two Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon joined the 49 Democrats (out of 100 Senators) in backing the bill.
Democrats believe that President Bush was misguided to launch war on Iraq in 2003. Democrat Senators agree with the remark what their oldest Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia) said long time ago: " No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper...Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our world is disputed, our intentions are questioned....I weep for my country."
The military needs the money by April 15th and the Pentagon was already having to juggle accounts, shifting money from one programme to another.
Democrats say that the President is at fault because he took too long to send his financial request to Congress. Some say the President did it deliberately to confront the Democrats in the public eye by not adopting the financial measures for the military operations in Iraq.
Representative John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who led the push for the new Iraqi policy, reportedly said that simply responding to American public sentiment was enough reason for the administration at least to try to negotiate with Congress.
President Bush has enough on his plate. Iran's nuclear programme is a major political headache for the administration. The attempt to forge realignment of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah of Lebanon and Hamas of Palestine seems to have failed. Saudi Arabia does not seem to have bought the idea.
Against the background, the US Secretary of State has lately wanted to show that the US has been actively engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but has failed to deal with the core issues, such as status of Jerusalem, return of refugees to Israel and withdrawal of Israeli occupation from the Palestinian territory.
The Arabs are annoyed that the US continues to boycott the new Palestinian unity government, brokered by Saudi Arabia. So also is Israel.
At the Arab League Summit on March 28-29 in Riyadh, King Abdullah sent a chilling message to the Bush administration that his policies in the Middle East pose danger to all states in the region. For the first time a serious difference of opinion has erupted between the US and its long-time ally Saudi Arabia.
The message from the Summit is loud and clear. Unless the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved with "two states formula", nothing is going to change in the region. The US has no coherent strategy in its attempt to resolve the conflict.
Arab, Palestinians and the US together with Israel are moving from one pillar to another pillar without any success. America has never been weaker in framing clear choices in resolving the conflict.
Seven years ago, President Clinton put forward a plan to resolve the conflict. The Bush administration seems to be allergic to lay hand on the plan because it would create popularity for the Democrats. Neither is the US prepared to accept the Saudi plan of 2002, revived again.
Vacuum is created; the US has no specific strategy in the Middle East including in Iraq. The President rejected the bipartisan Iraq Study of The Baker-Hamilton Report. Furthermore the Senate is hostile to the President.
The struggle with the Senate has on Iraq issue has weakened the President. His popularity poll within the US stands around 33-35%, lowest ever for a President. But Bush is not wavering because he does not want to show his weakness. He expected the Congress to be wise about the way they "spend the people's money."
Thomas Friedman, US columnist, summed up aptly the role of the Bush administration in the Middle East: "The Bush team reminds me of someone who buys a rundown house that comes with remodeling plans by Frank Lloyd Wright but insists stead on using drawings submitted by the next -door neighbours. You get what you pay for it. Or what you don't pay for."
The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
KALEIDOSCOPE
Operation Iranian freedom
Nasrine R. Karim
Defence Secretary Robert Gates told a Pentagon press conference, "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran." However BBC reported: "Diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list." The BBC report was not the first to leak details of the Pentagon's preparations for war against Iran.
Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh has published several detailed articles in the New Yorker over the past year outlining the US plans, citing senior Pentagon, State Department and intelligence sources, for attacking Iran, including the possible use of nuclear weapons. Several British newspapers, including the Times, have described advanced US and Israeli military preparations against Tehran.
"American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons was reported in the London-based New Statesman. "British military sources told the New Statesman, anonymously, that 'the US military switched its whole focus to Iran' as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for 'Operation Iranian Freedom'."
Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, the two top UN weapons inspectors dealing with Iraq prior to the 2003 US invasion, have joined growing chorus of voices warning of the dangers of a US war against Iran. In an article in the International Herald Tribune, Blix asked: "Will the United States use armed force against Iran? Hardly any foreign policy issue is hotter right now. American planes are reported to be patrolling along the borders between Iraq and Iran, and US forces have been authorised to kill Iranian agents in Iraq. Two US aircraft carriers are in the Gulf and missile defences have been installed in Gulf States. The military build up is either to scare Tehran or to prepare for American attacks on Iran." However, Blix did note that Iran had refused to abide by the UN Security Council resolution passed in December 2006.
Despite the deepening military disasters confronting the US-led occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is determined to press ahead with its ambitions to assert the alleged American domination over the resource-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The confirmation that the Bush administration is intensifying its campaign for "regime change" in Tehran is the establishment of units in the US State Department and Pentagon dedicated to undermining the Iranian government. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested an additional $75 million to support Iranian exile groups and political opposition inside Iran. A new Iranian Affairs office has been established under the supervision of Vice President Cheney's daughter, Elizabeth Cheney.
Now, Israel had never formally acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons till recently and Israeli Prime Minister seemed to admit that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and has not signed the NPT. Analysts estimate Israel's nuclear arsenal, at between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads.
According to Al-Jazeera, Iran has immediately called for the UN Security Council to compel Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. The request, made last Tuesday in a letter to the Security Council, comes after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, appeared to admit in a TV interview that Israel had indeed nuclear weapons. Javad Zarif, Iran's UN Ambassador said that Olmert's comments had "removed any excuse - if there ever were any - for continued inaction by the council in the face of this actual threat to international peace and security". He said the council should "compel it to abandon nuclear weapons, urge it to accede to the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) without delay.
After meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin the Israeli PM Olmert had said that the Iranians "have to be afraid" of the consequences of their refusal to heed international calls to stop their nuclear development efforts. "They have to understand that if they object to every compromise, there will be a heavy price," he said. Why?
In considering the events of September 12th 2006, it should be recalled that the attacks five years before that were carried out by individuals, known by American intelligence agencies to be members of Al Qaeda, who were allowed to freely enter and exit the United States, take flight training classes and purchase one-way, first class tickets on major airlines all in the face of mounting intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airplanes and attack the United States.
It is almost certain that sections of the American intelligence and political apparatus were aware of an impending attack but may have decided to let it take place in order to establish a possible pretext for carrying out important US policy goals. We know that the US and allies' attack on Afghanistan, killing some 100,000 innocent people and then thereafter Iraq, (official death toll passing 1 crore innocent lives) had nothing to do with the disaster on the twin towers in New York. I am glad that Speaker Pelosi has made some overtures to quell the disastrous situation in the Middle East. Talking is always good.
"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."
- General Robert E. Lee, in a letter to his wife, 1864.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
|
