How can Sri Lanka’s democracy be gender-inclusive?

Covered in the Ceylon Today, Colombo Telegraph, Lanka Business Online and Economy Next

By Sathya Karunarathne

Sri Lanka’s general election dawned at a crucial time of extreme uncertainty and precariousness. The island’s political, social, and economic spheres have been dismantled by an unexpected global pandemic that drove the country into a political limbo with the dissolving of the parliament. The task of untangling the island from its woes has now been handed over to a male-led parliament elected by the general public ostensibly upholding the true values of a  democracy. In contrast, Sri Lanka’s female demographic which constitutes 52% of the population is left underrepresented in parliament, forgotten, and deprived of positions of power and access to the national decision making and policy implementation process, yet again. 

At present, Sri Lanka is ranked 182 out of 193 countries on the inter-parliamentary union of rankings which assesses the percentage share of women in national government. In the previous parliament 13 legislators, or rather a handful of 5.8% of 225 MPs represented the voice and needs of 52% of the population. Moreover, there was only one woman under the age of 40 in parliament that represented the needs of young women.  The newly elected parliament boasts a grand total of one cabinet and two-state female Ministers with five more female members of parliament being elected by popular vote. Moreover, SLPP, SJB, and NPP have collectively appointed four female representatives through their National Lists. 

The World Gender Gap Report published by the World Economic Forum ranked Sri Lanka amongst the top 20 countries in 2006. However, Sri Lanka has drastically slipped in the rankings and has descended to be ranked 102 out of 153 countries in the year 2020 despite performing well on other indicators such as health and education. In 2006 Sri Lanka ranked 84th on the economic participation and opportunity sub-index while in 2020 we ranked 126, slipping 42 places. Moreover, wage equality for similar work has degraded by 27 places since 2006 from being ranked 55 to being ranked 82. Further, Sri Lanka has performed poorly on the political empowerment sub-indicator ranking 7 in 2006 and 73 in the year 2020. Even though Sri Lanka has ranked 9 on “years with a female head of state” indicator it should be noted that the index takes into consideration countries with the most years of a female head of state in the past fifty years. As this is a large time frame it does not necessarily reflect consistency in female political empowerment, especially in the Sri Lankan context. 

Why does female representation matter?

The World Economic Forum states that women are underrepresented in the political sphere globally, with women only making up 23% of national parliamentarians. This severe underrepresentation has an empirical correlation with policy choices and adverse consequences in women’s and children’s welfare. A study by the World Economic Forum addressed this issue by analyzing gender representation in local municipalities and the provision of public childcare in Bavaria. To assess the effect female councillors would have on public childcare a study was carried out to compare the expansion of public childcare across municipalities that have similar characteristics but differ in their share of female councillors. Results emphasized that one additional woman in the local council accelerates the expansion of public childcare by 0.4 spots per 1,000 inhabitants or by 40%. Moreover, a comparison of over 7,700  minutes of council meetings displayed that one additional woman translates to child care being spoken of more frequently and that it creates the ambiance for other female councillors to voice their opinion confidently and to play a more active role in the process of policymaking and implementation.

These findings are relevant to Sri Lanka now more so than ever as Sri Lanka has seen a spike in the number of child abuse and violation of child rights reported in the year, highlighting the lack of female perspective in the policymaking process. 

Furthermore, Sri Lanka is no stranger to policies and laws that are excruciatingly gender discriminatory. Marital rape being legal under the penal code which dehumanizes the “role and duty of a wife”, the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) of 1951 that has a multitude of discriminatory provisions with regard to marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, property rights and access to justice for Muslim women, discriminatory principles in the Kandyan law on divorce and inheritance, limitations on property rights applicable to women in Jaffna under the Tesawalamai law, mammoth taxes on menstrual hygiene products that are considered a luxury despite 4.2 million menstruating women, 14 year justice struggle for victims of rape, lack of incentive provided for women to enter into the labour force resulting in only 34.3% of females being economically active , failure and delay of the government in midst of the COVID 19 pandemic to repatriate migrant workers that mostly comprise of women who are Sri Lanka’s highest foreign exchange earners, lack of a monitory body/mechanism to assist families and children of migrant workers are just a few amongst a host of gender insensitive and discriminatory laws and policies that haunt the quality of life, day-to-day activities, and even threaten the very lives of women across the island. It takes no expert to identify that much-needed reforms have been conveniently pushed under the rug over the years due to lack of female perspective and representation in positions of power and parliament where laws and policies are debated and solidified. 

Laments of local females aspiring to shatter the glass ceiling 

A glance at the number of female contestants from each major party in the recent general election depicts the difficulty female expectants face in being nominated as a candidate. With the motive of addressing these issues and ensuring women representation in local government, Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act, No. 1 of 2016 was introduced which presented a 25% mandatory quota for women. The practicality of abruptly coercing women into positions of power was lost in this attempt. Candidates were provided with zero training and preparation to enter into local government, despite years of convincing them that their expertise lies within the boundaries of a kitchen. Moreover, the lack of preparation in this regard resulted in priority being given to relatives and close associates of politicians overlooking qualified and competent candidates.  

Since Mrs. Bandaraniake’s debut, Sri Lanka’s lineage of female leaders has repeatedly painted a dramatic chronicle of the devoted woman, who steps out of their male counterpart’s shadow in the case of his demise to dutifully carry on the legacy of the deceased. This narrative does not only rob these females of an authentic career and individuality but also leaves a permanent imprint of pedigree that doesn’t necessarily reflect the aspirations of the average woman. Moreover, this phenomenon compromises the quality of leadership as overnight shifts to the political sphere has a certain degree of risk attached to it.

Women continue to be severely underrepresented due to the unequal access to finances and resources needed to successfully seek nominations and to participate in electoral campaigns. According to research conducted by UN Women in 2013, over 80% of respondents identified the lack of access to funding as one of the biggest obstacles for women to participate in a political competition (Ballington and Kahane, 2014). Politics and campaigning is a sphere dominated by big money and more often than not the economically disempowered woman is ruled out from this rich man’s club. According to Lihini Fernando, UNP’s municipal councillor from Moratuwa it costs Rs.25 million roughly to campaign throughout the district. Strong female candidates such as Rosi Senanayake too have stated that financial pressure is a huge burden carried by women that are less likely to have sponsors. Moreover, females employed in the corporate sector, activists, legislature experts, etc are disincentivized to enter into politics due to the high costs involved both financially and otherwise. 

Psychological, sexual, and physical violence against women swamps the arena of politics. Sexually provocative comments publicly directed on new media, abuse from traditional media, the pressure to conform to a subordinate, the stereotypical image of an ideal woman, threats, and physical violence scourges the day to day experiences of a woman contesting to enter into government.

Reform Recommendations

Despite Sri Lanka ratifying the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and enshrined its commitment in the Women’s Charter of Sri Lanka (1993) and the National Plan of Action for Women (1996) reflecting constitutional and international commitments to securing the rights of the woman, the country is yet to implement progressive reforms that will increase women’s participation in the democratic process. 

While there are a multitude of reform recommendations that can assist in improving Sri Lanka’s female representation in government, a transparent and fair framework to finance election campaigns through the Election Finance Campaign Act takes precedence and can pave the way to level the playing field in electoral competition between genders. Introducing a cap for spending on election campaigning and amending election laws to include disclosure of information pertaining to the quantum and sources of campaign contributions can combat illicit campaign financing and high costs involved. Moreover, voluntary, non legislated practices such as internal fundraising mechanisms in-kind contributions can help address the gender funding gap within parties. Moreover, countries like Brazil have put in place provisions to ensure a certain airtime for female contestants from each political party.

Initiating training programmes and capacity building for women aspiring to run for office is crucial in increasing and solidifying effective female representation. These programmes can be targeted at grassroot level activists and even extend to local school levels to encourage and motivate young women to pursue a career in politics. Moreover, special attention should be given to proper selection criteria and conducting the said programmes trilingually. Within parties, training programmes and capacity building should be provided to women along with due recognition and equal opportunity. 

Moreover, introducing a mandatory quota for women in the national list for major parties is yet another step that can be taken in addressing gender underrepresentation. This can facilitate female expectants to avoid financial burdens and gender-based violence and aggression associated with campaigning.

Sathya Karunarathne is a Research Executive at the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at sathya@advocata.org or @SathyaKarunara1 on twitter. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

The myth: Self-sufficiency guarantees food security

Covered in the Daily Mirror, Ada derana and Colombo Telegraph

By Sathya Karunarathne

The novel coronavirus which drove cities and countries into lockdown has now sparked anxiety over a possible food crisis given the increase in export and import bans and disruption of global food supply chains. 

This uncertainty has left the Sri Lankan government to question whether these disruptions would affect food security in the near future and if ensuring self-sufficiency is the absolute and undisputed solution to this conundrum. In this attempt to achieve self-sufficiency in food the government has resorted to import substitution to strengthen domestic production.

Keeping in line with these protectionist policies the government has indefinitely extended import controls that were initially introduced on the 22nd of May for three months “to be in effect till further notice”. Import controls in this degree and nature have not been seen since the 1970s and this has led policymakers and public debate to be heavily inclined towards the possibility of revisiting and reconsidering the socialist policies adopted by the Bandaranaike government.

How credible is the popular narrative?

The renewed vigor attached to closed economic policies and food protectionism through public discourse is perhaps understandable. Amidst a foreign exchange crisis in April, the government imposed import restrictions on 156 categories of products including essential food items such as rice, flour, and sugar. 

Although import restrictions on most of the essential food items have been removed, temporary restrictions have been extended indefinitely on grains, stainless steel tankers and bowsers needed for the distribution of milk and blast freezers needed for preserving poultry meat. While these restrictions have been put in place with the motive of protecting the depreciating rupee it carries a massive potential to further harm the domestic distribution and storage of food which is already in a fragile state.  

Moreover, the latest Climate and Food Security Monitoring bulletin of WFP (United Nations World Food Programme) raises concerns of food security among vulnerable parts in Sri Lanka as a result of the impact and control response of the COVID-19 outbreak. The report further elaborated that weather-related shocks combined with poor hygienic and sanitation conditions could result in an increase of acute malnutrition in the island.  

In response to these growing anxieties in the wake of the COVID 19 pandemic, the government put in place programs and policies to ensure self-sufficiency in food within the island. On the 28th of May, the government approved the importation of 2,500 dairy cows from Australia. The motive behind this decision as stated by the cabinet spokesman is to ensure Sri Lanka’s self-sufficiency in milk by 2025, even though this measure failed just over a year ago with the death of 500 imported heifers that were ill-suited to Sri Lanka’s climate.

Furthermore, restrictions on maize imports that were imposed with the intention of strengthening domestic production has resulted in a lack of maize as feed for chicken. Available alternative feed is not as nutritious for poultry and has affected the quality and production of eggs. Egg production has fallen from 200-300 eggs per year from chicken to 200-240 eggs per year.  With the fall of production, prices have picked up.

On the 3rd of July, Senaka Samarasinghe, Managing Director of Harischandra Mills PLC stated to Ada Derana that import restrictions imposed on agricultural products such as ulundu, black-eyed pea, big onion, red onion, green gram, peanut, corn, and dried chili have affected manufacturers adversely resulting in a massive drop of production. 

These import restrictions have severely affected manufacturers who rely on ulundu as a raw material to produce products such as papadam, flour, thosai, wadai and dhal. Given the lack of raw materials, Harischandra Mills PLC has had to reduce their production by a staggering 90 per cent. Sri Lanka’s domestic ulundu requirement per year is about 12,000 metric tonnes (mt). The production of ulundu domestically has reduced to 5000 mt due to the drought. External factors that affect the domestic supply of food such as these calls for imports to fill the output gap. 

These import restrictions have adversely affected Sri Lanka’s already fragile export sector as well, as manufacturers have failed to meet the demand of international markets for products such as thosai mix. Harischandra PLC exports 15 per cent of its thosai mix to markets in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. These protectionist policies that aim to protect the domestic producer and to strengthen their production, have resulted in achieving the very opposite of its intentions as small scale producers of ulundu have opted to close down resulting in reduced shop sales. Moreover, the ban has affected the production of kurakkan flour with producers resorting to completely stopping or reducing production. This fibre-rich alternative to wheat flour is widely consumed by diabetic patients and is an important part of their medically recommended diet. 

It is no doubt that the pandemic has brought to light the extreme vulnerability of Sri Lanka’s domestic food supply to external shocks. These policies have a demonstrated history of achieving quite the opposite of their intentions. The ’70s “produce or perish” economy is an excruciating reminder of this fact as bug-infested flour, hardly edible bread, and stone infiltrated rice was every Sri Lankan’s staple. Therefore the popular narrative that promotes restrictive policies has zero credibility as it will only tighten the already constrained food supply by repeating the mistakes of the past. Long term policy solutions to the crisis, therefore,  should focus on the sustainability and practicality of isolating the island from global trade and food supply chains and producing the bulk of our dietary needs domestically.

Sustainable approach to attaining food security: Lessons from Singapore

The Global Food Security Index (GFSI)  ranks countries’ food security based on food affordability, availability,  quality as well as an adjustment for natural resources and resilience.  Singapore was able to secure the title as the most food-secure nation for two consecutive years, with a high rank in all three core pillars. 

Singapore’s success is attributed to the government’s continued commitment to stay connected to global food supply chains and to strengthen local production. Singapore diversified its food import sources from 140 countries in 2004 to more than 170 countries and regions in 2019  making the country’s food supply chain more resilient and has set a “30 by 30” goal to produce 30 per cent of the country’s nutritional needs by 2030. Diversifying food imports and making the country’s food supply chain more resilient are two sustainable policy solutions through which Sri Lanka can ensure long term food security. 

The Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations (FAO) states that the crisis we are facing is a global problem that requires a global response.  This calls for governments to collaborate to avoid further disruptions to food supply chains. Import diversification in the context of food security refers to increasing the number of countries from which we import food. 
This ensures an undisrupted inflow of food supply into the country ensuring both physical availability and choice of food in crisis situations. Import diversification is effective even in ordinary situations as loss in the harvest of one exporting country will not threaten the availability or supply of that particular product/produce for the importing country. Singapore imports over 90 per cent of their consumption needs with only 13 per cent of vegetables and 9 per cent of fish being produced locally.  

Moreover, in order to avoid disruptions to the supply chain that may occur by depending on a single major import supplier Singapore has resorted to promoting frozen and powdered product alternatives. Sri Lanka cannot resort to these options by restricting the importation of freezers, tankers, and bowsers that are necessary for such alternatives.

The world is highly globalized and so are food supply chains. Isolating from this interconnected food supply chain will only exacerbate Sri Lanka’s food insecurity. This was evident in the 2007-2008 global food price crisis when export restrictions put in place by exporting countries to increase food security domestically led to serious disturbance in the world food market resulting in price spikes and increased price volatility. In a more local context, this was evident when the government banned the importation of turmeric along with other non-essential goods which led to a scarcity and the available being sold for an exorbitant price ranging from Rs 300-350/- per 100 g despite a maximum retail price of Rs.75 per 100 g. 

Eradicating weaknesses and inefficiencies in the domestic food supply chain is essential to ensuring food security within a country. This is referred to as building a resilient food system domestically. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) defines food security as follows: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences ”.  The abrupt lockdown and curfew COVID-19 brought revealed that our domestic food supply chain does not offer economic or physical access to nutritious food. This was painfully apparent when people desperate to eat set off a stampede during a cash handout held in celebration of Eid, leaving eight injured and three killed. 

This is an obvious cautionary alarm to the government to fix the inefficiencies of the domestic food system and to enhance emergency food assistance to the vulnerable communities, who most often end up bearing the brunt of such inefficiencies. Every crisis presents an opportunity to focus on rebuilding through a novel lens. This presents an opportunity for Sri Lanka to rethink its approach to food security and to branch out our policy solutions to more sustainable and timely options.

Solution 

This crisis has proved that import restrictions and heavy gravitation towards self-sufficiency cannot solve the myriad of issues plaguing the country’s food supply system. Closed economic policies to achieve self-sufficiency, do not guarantee all citizen’s economic and physical access to nutritious food nor do they guarantee a resilient domestic food supply chain. 

Investing in cold storages and strengthened logistics networks, shifting towards climate-smart agriculture, ensuring the supply of raw materials and agricultural equipment by making the eligibility verification process for tax exemptions less complicated and improving ease of doing business, removing import restrictions on veterinary medicine, chemical fertilizer, and other inputs,  relaxing restrictions on the cultivation of crops, strengthening emergency food assistance to vulnerable communities with linkages to local and provincial governments can be stated as policy priorities that can address the inefficiencies of the domestic food supply chain.

The way forward to ensuring the island’s food security is in improving internal inefficiencies while recognizing the extreme and timely importance of staying connected to global food supply chains through relaxing import restrictions and multiplying our food and raw material import sources. 

Sathya Karunarathne is a Research Executive at the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at sathya@advocata.org or @SathyaKarunara1 on twitter. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Import controls - out of control?

Covered in the Colombo Telegraph

By Erandi de Silva

As the COVID-19 virus forced much of the world into lockdown, the scale of interdependence and reliance on trade across nations was apparent by the global urgency to re-open economies as soon as possible. The shortage of goods and loss of income experienced due to the disruption of supply chains helped some nations realize that a country typically stands to lose more than it may gain by being shut out from the global market. Sri Lanka continually increasing import controls and locking itself out of trading networks then begs the question, why are we punishing ourselves? 

A common justification in people’s minds may be that difficult times call for difficult measures; curbing imports may seem inevitable amidst the current health crisis caused by a contagious virus and the financial threat of a depreciating currency. However, as elections are approaching, it appears these decisions are primarily driven by political and not economic motives. Given that Sri Lanka’s exchange rate became a key campaign topic in the last election, the current rise in import controls seems to be an attempt at artificially maintaining a “strong” currency prior to elections after the excessive money-printing in March this year. 

Furthermore, such decisions should also be recognised as far more than precautionary policies due to the pandemic, and rather, a projection of the national tendency to revert to protectionism. The ban placed on maize imports in mid-January (prior to when the first case of coronavirus was reported in Sri Lanka) indicates this predisposition. Sri Lanka exhibits a recurrent desire - often fueled by nationalistic rhetoric - to boost domestic production or even become self-sufficient across various sectors and industries, sometimes in complete ignorance of comparative advantage and practicalities. This is evidenced in the aftermath of importing 5,000 milk cows in order to boost local dairy production in 2017 which led to many farmers accruing debt whilst over 400 cows died due to poor living conditions. Not only did it result in Sri Lanka still importing; this method was more expensive because now money had to be spent to feed and care for the cows in the absence of their natural habitat. Despite this result, the new Government again approved a proposal to import 2,500 cattle from Australia on the 1st of June this year in the hope of curbing milk product imports to Sri Lanka.

In the case of import controls and such protectionist actions, problems tend to manifest regardless of the intentions behind the implementation of such policies. For example, the maize embargo which was imposed with the intent of accelerating domestic production and protecting local farmers has led to several adversities - now including a shortage of supply. It is important to note that the brunt of the outcome was faced by a vulnerable stakeholder that the Government aims to protect: small-scale poultry farmers. As the main consumers of maize (because it is needed for chicken feed), poultry farmers were initially forced to pay higher prices to obtain maize and were at the mercy of Sri Lanka’s oligopoly of grain collectors. The problem was exacerbated as domestic stocks of maize withered away and suppliers could not import to fill the deficit. According to the Export Development Board, Sri Lanka imported 102,461.175 metric tonnes of maize in 2019 despite domestic production for the year being at 245,647 metric tonnes. This clearly reflects that the local demand for maize is far greater than the domestic capacity for maize production. Another example of unintended consequences can be extracted from the confectionery industry which recently expressed concern regarding the inability to access imported raw materials that are necessary for cost-effective local production. The 340% special commodity levy on block fat and margarine imports which was introduced this month has led to significant strain and job-insecurity within the industry. 

The new administration recently reiterated their pledge made under the ‘Saubhagya Dekma’ policy statement of turning Sri Lanka into a “people-centric production economy”. Despite his claim that limiting imports has “paved the way” for a production economy, it is necessary to understand that even most local businesses require imported materials in order to produce. The latest statistics from the World Bank indicate that 38.19% of our total merchandise imports are intermediate goods that are used locally as inputs for production. Regardless of our ambitions, Sri Lanka’s economy requires imports for growth. Many of our consumables are imported and local businesses, including key exporters such as the textile industry, use imported raw materials. Curbing imports will impede the ability of local businesses to cost-effectively grow.

If the Government fails to readjust its policy on import controls and continues down the path of increasing protectionism post-COVID-19, Sri Lanka may continue to face economic instability and revenue loss within the sectors that are affected by these constraints. Ultimately, despite the rhetoric and propaganda of “saving local businesses” and creating a brand of “made in Sri Lanka” that enamours the public during political campaigns, it is often the most vulnerable within local businesses that stand to lose the most from the enactment of protectionist policies. As poultry farmers struggle to maintain their income and employees within the confectionery industry remain anxious about the status of their jobs, the question remains: why are we punishing ourselves?

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Reform for our micro and small businesses

Covered in the Daily FT and Daily Mirror

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

Last Saturday was the UN World Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Day, and in light of that, focus should be given to Sri Lanka’s small businesses and the challenges they face. 

Sri Lankan micro and small enterprises form a substantial part of our economy. Sole proprietorships account for 63.1% of all businesses in the country, and account for 27.1% of national employment (Department of Census and Statistics). However, they face a myriad of challenges and this focus on improving their business environment is welcome. As highlighted in a study conducted by the Advocata Institute on the regulatory barriers faced by micro and small enterprises, the three main challenges faced are access to finance, labour, and rent.

In addition, 45% of micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises remain unregistered, exacerbating these problems. Unregistered businesses are excluded from formal sources of finance, business networks, and do not qualify for Government assistance. 

In early March this year, the Cabinet approved the establishment of ‘one-stop shops’ for micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka. This project is now moving forward, with the Government working with the EU to set up these ‘one-stop shops’ in each district; with the aim of streamlining the registration process and providing assistance on issues of access to technology, quality control and access to markets. However, what else is there to be done? 

The problem of registration

Registering a business in Sri Lanka has always been a long, tedious process; one that discouraged businesses and negatively impacted our ease of doing business ranking. However, in 2018, Sri Lanka was witness to some welcome reform with the launch of ‘E-RoC portal’, which streamlined registration, and brought the process completely online. This success in reform was reflected in the country’s ranking on the ease of doing business ranking and was hailed as a reform success. 

However, the E-RoC portal is only applicable to the registration of private companies. 

In Sri Lanka, the registration of private companies is governed by the Companies Act No 07 of 2007, while the registration of sole proprietorships and partnerships are governed by Business Names Ordinance No 06 of 1918. As a result, the E-RoC could not be broadened to include the sole proprietors and partnerships. 

97% of micro-businesses in Sri Lanka and 85% of small businesses have registered their business as sole proprietorships, with only 3% of the businesses surveyed having registered themselves as a partnership, and 2% registering themselves as a Private Limited Company.4 In other words, for the vast majority of micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka, their registration process is long, tedious and unnecessarily convoluted.

How does business registration work for sole proprietors and partnerships?

The process of registration is implemented by the Divisional Secretariats. At best, the country currently has nine different regulatory processes for the registration of sole proprietors and partnerships. The process of registering a sole proprietorship or a partnership in Sri Lanka is a time consuming, complicated task, with the main steps detailed below: 

1. Visit the Divisional Secretariat and collect form and instructions

2. Fill out the application

3. Provide documentation

   • Proof of ownership of business premises

   • Original Deed and notarised copy or

   • Original Rent agreement and notarised copy, or

   • No Objection letter from the owner of the premises

   • NIC copy

   • Tax assessment notification for the premises

   • Copy of the partnership business agreement

   4. Visit the Grama Niladhari and get the application and attached documents approved

   5. Receive additional approvals depending on the business type e.g.: PHI approval

   6. Hand over completed application to the Divisional Secretariat.

A majority of provinces do not have the application for business registration or the instructions sheet available for download from the Divisional Secretariat or Provincial Council website, and the instruction form is not always available in all three languages. 

This is in comparison to much simpler processes that have become standard internationally, and have also been replicated in Sri Lanka, as was seen with the E-RoC reform for private companies. 

Address the problem at hand

According to the island-wide survey conducted by the Advocata Institute, over 80% of respondents found the Grama Niladhari and the Divisional Secretariat to be an effective touch point. This would indicate that improving service at this point may not be an immediate requirement. Instead, focus should be placed on reforming the registration process for micro and small enterprises. 

Sri Lanka’s micro and small enterprises will have faced significant economic fallout during the curfew period. The Government has recognised this and responded with policy action like the debt moratorium to help ease some financial pressure. However, this is unlikely to be sufficient. These policies would only apply to entities that have registered their business and would leave the segment of unregistered businesses without support. It is vital that the registration process is streamlined, making it easier for these businesses to enter the formal sector and reap the benefits for formal sources of finance, and better access to markets that come with formalisation. There is a window for reform that exists, and we hope that the Government takes advantage of this to bring about some much-needed change.