Reaz Ahmad
PESTS are small insects that can cause colossal losses to crops, but many of them are not necessarily harmful to agricultural produce. The friendly ones are not only useful to the overall crop production process but also occasionally act as deterrents to the ill-effects of the harmful ones. It has always been a big challenge for growers to protect crops from pest attacks. For centuries, farmers have been practicing natural, biological and also chemical ways of protecting their produce from pest attacks. Farmers in a particular farming neighbourhood create an environment so that friendly insects outnumber the harmful ones and protect the crops in a very natural way. Integrated pest management and bio-pest management are also in vogue now. Yet, we can't just ignore the application of chemical pesticides as another recognised way of fighting the little predators. In our part of the world, chemical pesticides have been used to protect crops from pest attacks since 1956. For over two decades or so, the government, though on a limited scale, used to import pesticides and distribute them among the farmers. Then came the era of commercial marketing of pesticides with both public and private companies entering the burgeoning pesticide market with a wide range of products -- which are not limited to pesticides but also include different brands of fungicides and weed killers too. The sales of pesticides saw almost 300% rise from the mid '90s till now in Bangladesh. This emphasises the fact that farmers are more desperate now than ever before to protect their crops from pest damage and gain more output. More actors are in play now in the pesticide business, but the menace of pests of various genres and types is growing. The pro-environment activists and defenders of nature's biological equilibrium apart, others may not mind judicious application of chemical pesticides in crop fields as long as that puts more grains in our bowls and better fortune to crop growers. But, here the main catch is best practices. Despite having different pesticide regulatory set-ups in place, our poor farmers are still highly vulnerable to marketing of low-quality, unregistered and smuggled date-expired pesticides. Often, the companies do not care to educate their product users about the optimum level of pesticide usage, application process, timing and frequency, and safety aspects. Thanks to the probe undertaken by the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), we have come to know how the excessive use of pesticides has been taking toll of human and animal lives in our villages. This newspaper reported in its May 5 issue that excessive use of pesticides on farmlands in two villages of Dhamrai upazila caused the death of at least three children in April this year. It also killed a number of calves, dogs and fowls. Besides, the report says, 13 more children were hospitalised. We can't afford to protect our crops at the cost of our children's lives. While we welcome the IEDCR's move of launching an awareness campaign about pesticides in those two villages and sending biological and environmental samples -- including blood, urine, stool, cough and breast milk from villagers -- abroad for further tests, the issue here definitely demands more regulatory, legal and advocacy actions from the concerned government agencies. There is a pesticide technical advisory committee in place, there is an association of pesticide marketers and producers in Bangladesh, there are thousands of agriculture extension staff across the country, and they all should play their respective parts now so that best practice can be ensured in applying the proper and timely doses of pesticides.Often, we see farmers applying pesticides without using proper protective equipment, thereby exposing themselves to poisonous pesticides and their residues. Sometimes farmers, totally unaware of serious consequences, apply pesticides even on the very day they would be plucking the produce from the trees. Such last-moment spraying of pesticides is a serious health threat for the consumers. The government as well as the pesticide producers, marketers and distributors have now got a huge collective responsibility to educate the pesticide users about integrated pest management, proper doses and pesticide application safety measures, and also to get rid of fake, adulterated, unregistered and smuggled pesticides. The government must ensure that no unsafe pesticides are on sale or in use, and also update its list of legally authorised pesticides upon a renewed test of hazardous elements in each of those. Besides, there should be a concerted move to promote other alternative best practices in pest control. For instance, promotion of pheromone can be a better way out from the curse of chemical pesticides damaging our agro-ecological landscape. Pheromone is a small chemical capsule in a plastic bottle half-filled with water. It works wonders -- insects flock to the bottle to drown. Pheromone is the female sex hormone of insects that attracts the male. So, the time is ripe now to look for alternatives and further diversify the tactics of fighting against pests, and also to make sure that chemical pesticides are applied in proper doses and at proper times.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, August 4, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Good Money, Bad Money
Bad Money Driving Good Money Out of Circulation
Reaz Ahmad
Our central bank must be preoccupied with the uphill task of bringing back home the tons of money transferred illegally out of the country by political thugs over the last few years and that also, if not fully but definitely partly due to its own oversight. It must be also very busy overseeing burgeoning banking sector and important monetary policies at a time when an overstretched caretaker regime finds it handy to fight corrupts ahead of the overdue national polls. People on the street, in their daily life financial transactions, in the meantime, wonder when Bangladesh Bank will find sometime to look into the relatively ‘low-profile’ issue of torn and counterfeit bills. These-days notes, particularly the one of Taka two denomination, are so worn out and counterfeiting of notes, particularly of Taka 100 and 500 denominations, are so rampant that people are at great misery, facing lots of troubles in daily transactions.
Bad money is driving good money out of circulation in today’s Bangladesh, after five long centuries Sir Thomas Gresham had sermoned his law of ‘bad money/good money’ in Tudor times. The law of Gresham, an English financier, says that any circulating currency consisting of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ money quickly becomes dominated by the ‘bad’ money. This is because people spending money will hand over the ‘bad’ coins rather than the ‘good’ ones, keeping the ‘good’ ones for them. Consider a customer purchasing an item that costs Taka three, who has in his/her possession several Taka five notes. Some of these notes are more tattered, while others are less so – but legally, they are all mandated to be of equal value. The buyer would prefer retaining the better notes thus offering the seller the Taka five note that is worn to shreds. In turn, as the shopkeeper returns the change to the customer – s/he would obviousely give the most worn out Taka two note s/he has. Thus, the notes that circulate in the transaction will tend to be of the shabbiest sort available to the parties. And this is what exactly happening in Bangladesh currently.
In a letter written to Queen Elizabeth on the occasion of her accession in 1558, Sir Thomas Gresham observed, “that good and bad coin cannot circulate together.” The statement was part of Gresham’s explanation for the “unexampled state of badness” England’s coinage had been left in following the “Great Debasements” of King Henry VIII and King Edward VI, which reduced the metallic value of English silver coins to a small fraction of what that value had been at the time of King Henry VII.
Time has come that we write to our central bank governor – “sir, good and bad bills cannot circulate together.” There should be a bailout otherwise; people (no matter, rich or poor, consumer or vendor, service receiver or provider) will continue to suffer everyday. How long we carry on the troubles of possessing and transacting the worn out Taka two denominations and suffer and continue to be humiliated by having counterfeit notes of Taka 100 and 500 denominations? Unless the Bangladesh Bank takes some steps to bring the “good money” back into circulation replacing the “bad money” will the modern day economics permit private parties to circulate their own brand of currency as it once happened in England three centuries back?
It may sound little bizarre today, but back in the 1780s something like it threatened to bring Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution to a grinding halt. Unprecedented quantities of small change were needed to meet factory and mine payrolls and to fill retailers’ cash boxes. But the Royal Mint, finding its attempts to issue low value coins foiled by aggressive counterfeiting and by Gresham’s Law, quit making anything save high-value gold guineas after 1775.
Employers tried everything to get around Great Britain’s “small change” problem. They roamed the country buying up small coins at a premium. They resorted to “long” pay (monthly instead of weekly). They paid workers in groups, making them share guineas or banknotes. They offered “Tommy” (company store) tickets instead of cash. Many even paid their workers’ wages at pubs after settling their bar tabs in gold. But such makeshifts couldn’t possibly make up for the shortage of decent coins. Unless that shortage was addressed somehow, Great Britain had no chance of becoming the world’s first truly industrial nation.
Finally, in 1787, the owner of Great Britain’s biggest copper mine decided that, if the government wouldn’t supply coins suitable for paying his workers, he’d do it himself. Other entrepreneurs followed the suit, and before long more than 20 commercial mints started supplying British industry with hundreds of tons of custom-made copper coins. Drawing on their experience in producing fancy metal buttons, these entrepreneurs managed to overcome administrative and technical problems that had all but shut down the Royal Mint. Thanks to them, Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution was saved.
Centuries later here in Bangladesh we the general currency users are now in a real fix – about how to cope with the situation. Be it a neighbourhood grocery shop or big retailers’ den, whether you’re paying bills to a restaurant or fare to a rickshawalla – it’s become a common scene people getting enraged and brawling over either torn or counterfeit bank notes.
Increasingly it’s becoming a health hazard too. Notes so worn out and spoiled that by touching and transacting those one need to wash their hands well prior indulging into other activities. For our school-going young kids dealing with such notes is a real hygiene issue.
Occasionally its dangerous too when by ignorance you’re carrying notes so worn out or possessing only a Taka 100 note in your purse that you later discover to be counterfeit. Because by the time you might have already bought goods or service and then you fall in an embarrassing position with the vendors or service providers disqualifying the money notes you’re offering. It’s so happening all the time. In one recent instance a housewife went to a renowned chain shop of clothes, artifacts, and fashion wares, bought some goods and paid the bill in the billing counter. Of the notes paid, the salesgirl separated a Taka 100 note from other notes, checked that, passed that note over to a male colleague who without telling anything to the customer just ripped a substantial portion of the note and asked the customer for another Taka 100 note.
To her awe, the customer then came to learn that it was a counterfeit 100 Taka note that she got as change after purchasing something just the previous day from her neighbourhood grocery shop. Now who’ll pay for the ‘lost value’ of that ripped counterfeit Taka 100 denomination – that remains a big question? It’s time the central bank gives an answer. Like big commercial bank branches should we all at individual level carry a money counterfeit-identifier machine with us?
Its high time Bangladesh Bank launches a nationwide drive against currency counterfeiting and replaces all the worn out notes with sufficient numbers of ‘good money.’ Because, Sir Thomas Gresham wrote in 1558 to Queen Elizabeth, “that good and bad coin cannot circulate together.” Isn’t it true for 2008 also?
Reaz Ahmad
Our central bank must be preoccupied with the uphill task of bringing back home the tons of money transferred illegally out of the country by political thugs over the last few years and that also, if not fully but definitely partly due to its own oversight. It must be also very busy overseeing burgeoning banking sector and important monetary policies at a time when an overstretched caretaker regime finds it handy to fight corrupts ahead of the overdue national polls. People on the street, in their daily life financial transactions, in the meantime, wonder when Bangladesh Bank will find sometime to look into the relatively ‘low-profile’ issue of torn and counterfeit bills. These-days notes, particularly the one of Taka two denomination, are so worn out and counterfeiting of notes, particularly of Taka 100 and 500 denominations, are so rampant that people are at great misery, facing lots of troubles in daily transactions.
Bad money is driving good money out of circulation in today’s Bangladesh, after five long centuries Sir Thomas Gresham had sermoned his law of ‘bad money/good money’ in Tudor times. The law of Gresham, an English financier, says that any circulating currency consisting of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ money quickly becomes dominated by the ‘bad’ money. This is because people spending money will hand over the ‘bad’ coins rather than the ‘good’ ones, keeping the ‘good’ ones for them. Consider a customer purchasing an item that costs Taka three, who has in his/her possession several Taka five notes. Some of these notes are more tattered, while others are less so – but legally, they are all mandated to be of equal value. The buyer would prefer retaining the better notes thus offering the seller the Taka five note that is worn to shreds. In turn, as the shopkeeper returns the change to the customer – s/he would obviousely give the most worn out Taka two note s/he has. Thus, the notes that circulate in the transaction will tend to be of the shabbiest sort available to the parties. And this is what exactly happening in Bangladesh currently.
In a letter written to Queen Elizabeth on the occasion of her accession in 1558, Sir Thomas Gresham observed, “that good and bad coin cannot circulate together.” The statement was part of Gresham’s explanation for the “unexampled state of badness” England’s coinage had been left in following the “Great Debasements” of King Henry VIII and King Edward VI, which reduced the metallic value of English silver coins to a small fraction of what that value had been at the time of King Henry VII.
Time has come that we write to our central bank governor – “sir, good and bad bills cannot circulate together.” There should be a bailout otherwise; people (no matter, rich or poor, consumer or vendor, service receiver or provider) will continue to suffer everyday. How long we carry on the troubles of possessing and transacting the worn out Taka two denominations and suffer and continue to be humiliated by having counterfeit notes of Taka 100 and 500 denominations? Unless the Bangladesh Bank takes some steps to bring the “good money” back into circulation replacing the “bad money” will the modern day economics permit private parties to circulate their own brand of currency as it once happened in England three centuries back?
It may sound little bizarre today, but back in the 1780s something like it threatened to bring Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution to a grinding halt. Unprecedented quantities of small change were needed to meet factory and mine payrolls and to fill retailers’ cash boxes. But the Royal Mint, finding its attempts to issue low value coins foiled by aggressive counterfeiting and by Gresham’s Law, quit making anything save high-value gold guineas after 1775.
Employers tried everything to get around Great Britain’s “small change” problem. They roamed the country buying up small coins at a premium. They resorted to “long” pay (monthly instead of weekly). They paid workers in groups, making them share guineas or banknotes. They offered “Tommy” (company store) tickets instead of cash. Many even paid their workers’ wages at pubs after settling their bar tabs in gold. But such makeshifts couldn’t possibly make up for the shortage of decent coins. Unless that shortage was addressed somehow, Great Britain had no chance of becoming the world’s first truly industrial nation.
Finally, in 1787, the owner of Great Britain’s biggest copper mine decided that, if the government wouldn’t supply coins suitable for paying his workers, he’d do it himself. Other entrepreneurs followed the suit, and before long more than 20 commercial mints started supplying British industry with hundreds of tons of custom-made copper coins. Drawing on their experience in producing fancy metal buttons, these entrepreneurs managed to overcome administrative and technical problems that had all but shut down the Royal Mint. Thanks to them, Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution was saved.
Centuries later here in Bangladesh we the general currency users are now in a real fix – about how to cope with the situation. Be it a neighbourhood grocery shop or big retailers’ den, whether you’re paying bills to a restaurant or fare to a rickshawalla – it’s become a common scene people getting enraged and brawling over either torn or counterfeit bank notes.
Increasingly it’s becoming a health hazard too. Notes so worn out and spoiled that by touching and transacting those one need to wash their hands well prior indulging into other activities. For our school-going young kids dealing with such notes is a real hygiene issue.
Occasionally its dangerous too when by ignorance you’re carrying notes so worn out or possessing only a Taka 100 note in your purse that you later discover to be counterfeit. Because by the time you might have already bought goods or service and then you fall in an embarrassing position with the vendors or service providers disqualifying the money notes you’re offering. It’s so happening all the time. In one recent instance a housewife went to a renowned chain shop of clothes, artifacts, and fashion wares, bought some goods and paid the bill in the billing counter. Of the notes paid, the salesgirl separated a Taka 100 note from other notes, checked that, passed that note over to a male colleague who without telling anything to the customer just ripped a substantial portion of the note and asked the customer for another Taka 100 note.
To her awe, the customer then came to learn that it was a counterfeit 100 Taka note that she got as change after purchasing something just the previous day from her neighbourhood grocery shop. Now who’ll pay for the ‘lost value’ of that ripped counterfeit Taka 100 denomination – that remains a big question? It’s time the central bank gives an answer. Like big commercial bank branches should we all at individual level carry a money counterfeit-identifier machine with us?
Its high time Bangladesh Bank launches a nationwide drive against currency counterfeiting and replaces all the worn out notes with sufficient numbers of ‘good money.’ Because, Sir Thomas Gresham wrote in 1558 to Queen Elizabeth, “that good and bad coin cannot circulate together.” Isn’t it true for 2008 also?
Food price hike: Investment is the answer
Reaz Ahmad
FOOD prices are soaring like wildfire, and showing no sign of coming down. It appears from the volatile domestic food market that no price ceiling is enough, and prices are surging almost on a daily basis. Market forces are determining the prices and a last-ditch government effort to rope in spiraling soybean price by fixing a maximum ceiling has also fallen flat. The market is behaving erratically, and prices of most necessary food items are rising by one or two taka every day. The unabated food price hike has gone so far that it has become a question of survival for a vast majority of the impoverished Bangladeshi population. By no fair means are they able to cope with the situation. No longer can they afford to buy foodstuffs to the amount fulfilling their requirements and, at the same time, the scope for employment for scaling up income level has shrunk too, thanks to imprudent closures of mills and factories in recent times. In managing their low-level family budget, if the poor and ultra-poor continue to compromise with their daily food needs by taking less at each meal, we'll end up seeing a huge rise in the ranks of the malnourished and unproductive. Because we badly lack constant vigilance over the market, concerted market monitoring mechanisms and domestic and international price analysis mechanisms, all stop-gap arrangements to subdue the price spiral, have largely become futile. Given the enormity of the problem and vastness of the number of affected people, the stop-gap arrangements, at best, can provide some cosmetic affects, not a solution in totality. As the caretaker regime is faced with such a challenging situation, there is no good news from the West either. Food-wise, the whole world is now poised on a tight rope. The United States government's humanitarian relief agency is significantly scaling back emergency food aid to some of the world's poorest countries this year because of soaring global food prices, and the US Agency for International Development (Usaid) is drafting plans to reduce the number of recipient nations and/or the amount of food provided to them. Usaid officials said that a 41% surge in prices of wheat, corn, rice, and other cereals over the past six months has generated a $120 million budget shortfall that will force the agency to reduce emergency operations. That deficit is projected to rise to $200 million by year's end. Prices have skyrocketed as more grains go to bio-fuel production or are consumed by such fast-emerging markets like China and India.On March 1, the Washington Post quoted the UN World Food Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran: "Look at what's happened to wheat prices alone -- they shot up 25% in one day last week. This is really the first emergency we've faced without a drought, war, natural disaster. We will have to cut the amount of people being served or the amount of food being served if we do not get more funds." So, gone are the days when poor countries having low grain productivity could rely on food aid and imports. As global food productivity is on the wane, having enough money in hand to buy food will not guarantee food security in future. We need to put all our resources and technologies into growing our own food instead of depending on imported food or donated food. The more we invest on agricultural development the more we'll be able to reap the benefits in terms of greater grain output, thereby defusing our food insecurity to a large extent. Unless we invest enough on crop diversification, breed and seed development, bio-technological advancement and soil fertility, we will remain prone to vulnerability in terms of food security and have to depend on food aid and food import, which we can ill afford. Lest we forget, almost half of Bangladesh's children are underweight, whereas our MDG targets include reducing the number of underweight children to 34% and halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition by 2015. The hungry population of over 60 million in Bangladesh is larger than it is in most other countries -- the third largest poor population in any country after China and India. While we've successfully doubled our grain output over the last three decades, nearly half of Bangladesh is still far from being food secure. And the driving force behind the growth -- the tools and techniques of the Green Revolution -- has reached a plateau. The challenge of growing more food gets bigger every day -- we're losing 82,900 hectares of cropland each year while adding two million new mouths. In the early 1970s, the population was 70 million and population growth rate was over 3%, resulting in annual rise in population of 2 million. Now the population growth rate is 1.5%, thanks to a vigorous birth-control campaign, yet 2 million people are still being added each year due to the large population base -- over 140 million. As our government is trying hard to offset the rising food prices and seeking every avenue to keep prices to the level people can afford, it's high time it also does soul-searching regarding its investment portfolio on agricultural development. We have to ask ourselves: are we doing enough to enhance grain output? The World Bank and the FAO recommend investing 2% of GDP in farm research and development, whereas Bangladesh invests a meager 0.2%. There are as many as 27-food security and social safety net programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh, but the coverage is inadequate. SSNP allocation is less than 1% of GDP in Bangladesh; much less than the average allocation of 5% of GDP in South Asia and even less than 2% of GDP allocation in sub-Saharan Africa. Unless we invest more in these areas how can we expect our marginal population to cope with the global and domestic trend of food price hike? Our National Food Policy (NFP) 2006 envisages 3 principal objectives: a) adequate and stable supply of nutritious food at affordable prices, b) increased physical, social and economic access and purchasing power, and c) adequate nutrition for all individuals, specially women and children. Are we anywhere near attaining these objectives? Investment is the ultimate answer if we are to achieve the goals set in NFP 2006. Our annual rice import bill is enough to develop homegrown farm-tech to offset output deficit, and our yearly expenditure on chemical fertiliser import is enough to set-up a new urea factory at home. What we lack is a clear vision and priority setting.
Reaz Ahmad
FOOD prices are soaring like wildfire, and showing no sign of coming down. It appears from the volatile domestic food market that no price ceiling is enough, and prices are surging almost on a daily basis. Market forces are determining the prices and a last-ditch government effort to rope in spiraling soybean price by fixing a maximum ceiling has also fallen flat. The market is behaving erratically, and prices of most necessary food items are rising by one or two taka every day. The unabated food price hike has gone so far that it has become a question of survival for a vast majority of the impoverished Bangladeshi population. By no fair means are they able to cope with the situation. No longer can they afford to buy foodstuffs to the amount fulfilling their requirements and, at the same time, the scope for employment for scaling up income level has shrunk too, thanks to imprudent closures of mills and factories in recent times. In managing their low-level family budget, if the poor and ultra-poor continue to compromise with their daily food needs by taking less at each meal, we'll end up seeing a huge rise in the ranks of the malnourished and unproductive. Because we badly lack constant vigilance over the market, concerted market monitoring mechanisms and domestic and international price analysis mechanisms, all stop-gap arrangements to subdue the price spiral, have largely become futile. Given the enormity of the problem and vastness of the number of affected people, the stop-gap arrangements, at best, can provide some cosmetic affects, not a solution in totality. As the caretaker regime is faced with such a challenging situation, there is no good news from the West either. Food-wise, the whole world is now poised on a tight rope. The United States government's humanitarian relief agency is significantly scaling back emergency food aid to some of the world's poorest countries this year because of soaring global food prices, and the US Agency for International Development (Usaid) is drafting plans to reduce the number of recipient nations and/or the amount of food provided to them. Usaid officials said that a 41% surge in prices of wheat, corn, rice, and other cereals over the past six months has generated a $120 million budget shortfall that will force the agency to reduce emergency operations. That deficit is projected to rise to $200 million by year's end. Prices have skyrocketed as more grains go to bio-fuel production or are consumed by such fast-emerging markets like China and India.On March 1, the Washington Post quoted the UN World Food Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran: "Look at what's happened to wheat prices alone -- they shot up 25% in one day last week. This is really the first emergency we've faced without a drought, war, natural disaster. We will have to cut the amount of people being served or the amount of food being served if we do not get more funds." So, gone are the days when poor countries having low grain productivity could rely on food aid and imports. As global food productivity is on the wane, having enough money in hand to buy food will not guarantee food security in future. We need to put all our resources and technologies into growing our own food instead of depending on imported food or donated food. The more we invest on agricultural development the more we'll be able to reap the benefits in terms of greater grain output, thereby defusing our food insecurity to a large extent. Unless we invest enough on crop diversification, breed and seed development, bio-technological advancement and soil fertility, we will remain prone to vulnerability in terms of food security and have to depend on food aid and food import, which we can ill afford. Lest we forget, almost half of Bangladesh's children are underweight, whereas our MDG targets include reducing the number of underweight children to 34% and halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition by 2015. The hungry population of over 60 million in Bangladesh is larger than it is in most other countries -- the third largest poor population in any country after China and India. While we've successfully doubled our grain output over the last three decades, nearly half of Bangladesh is still far from being food secure. And the driving force behind the growth -- the tools and techniques of the Green Revolution -- has reached a plateau. The challenge of growing more food gets bigger every day -- we're losing 82,900 hectares of cropland each year while adding two million new mouths. In the early 1970s, the population was 70 million and population growth rate was over 3%, resulting in annual rise in population of 2 million. Now the population growth rate is 1.5%, thanks to a vigorous birth-control campaign, yet 2 million people are still being added each year due to the large population base -- over 140 million. As our government is trying hard to offset the rising food prices and seeking every avenue to keep prices to the level people can afford, it's high time it also does soul-searching regarding its investment portfolio on agricultural development. We have to ask ourselves: are we doing enough to enhance grain output? The World Bank and the FAO recommend investing 2% of GDP in farm research and development, whereas Bangladesh invests a meager 0.2%. There are as many as 27-food security and social safety net programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh, but the coverage is inadequate. SSNP allocation is less than 1% of GDP in Bangladesh; much less than the average allocation of 5% of GDP in South Asia and even less than 2% of GDP allocation in sub-Saharan Africa. Unless we invest more in these areas how can we expect our marginal population to cope with the global and domestic trend of food price hike? Our National Food Policy (NFP) 2006 envisages 3 principal objectives: a) adequate and stable supply of nutritious food at affordable prices, b) increased physical, social and economic access and purchasing power, and c) adequate nutrition for all individuals, specially women and children. Are we anywhere near attaining these objectives? Investment is the ultimate answer if we are to achieve the goals set in NFP 2006. Our annual rice import bill is enough to develop homegrown farm-tech to offset output deficit, and our yearly expenditure on chemical fertiliser import is enough to set-up a new urea factory at home. What we lack is a clear vision and priority setting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
