Focusing on food security and organic farming

The SAEA predicts massive economic losses due to potential yield losses, in the absence of proper substitutes for chemical fertilisers

Experts agree that green approaches in crop cultivation contribute significantly towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SAEA is of the view that most of the current farming systems in Sri Lanka are unsustainable (pic AFP) 

The Government has taken a good, but challenging and politically risky decision by announcing a blanket ban on chemical farming.  Public discourse on the move is somewhat diminished since the country’s attention is more focused on the prevention of the spread of the pandemic.

 
The Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEC), is the professional body representing the agricultural economists of Sri Lanka. Our membership endorses the Government’s decision to adopt a Green Socio-Economic Model for development, as we firmly believe that such a strategy is vital for conserving the environment and improving human health. We agree that green approaches in crop cultivation contribute significantly towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, SAEA is of the view that most of the current farming systems in Sri Lanka are unsustainable.

Hence, the conversion of them into organic farming systems, in the long run, would help promote health of the people and nurture integrity of the nation’s environment. It is well known that many countries currently take systematic and pragmatic approaches to achieve this long-term objective by first setting targets, standards, and subsequently, investing and promoting farmers to adopt best practices.

Therefore, we would like to extend our appreciation to the government for taking such a valuable decision to adopt the green socioeconomic model in Sri Lanka.

The GoSL has taken a challenging decision to have a blanket ban on chemical farming

The Downside
SAEA would also like to bring to your attention some concerns on the appropriateness of the newly introduced regulation, to restrict forthwith the importation of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by the Gazette Extraordinary No 2226/48 of May 6, 2021, to achieve the above-mentioned broader development goal.

The SAEA predicts massive economic losses due to potential yield losses, in the absence of proper substitutes for chemical fertilisers and pesticides, with the implementation of the import ban on fertilisers and pesticides. The immediate adverse impacts on food security, farm incomes, foreign exchange earnings and rural poverty can be detrimental to achieving the cherished long term goals. The SAEA’s primary concerns, and the less costly policy alternatives proposed by its members in place of the newly introduced import ban, are given below for your kind perusal and consideration.

A. Appropriateness of using an Import Restriction on Agrochemicals to promote organic farming
The SAEA is of the view that the policy instrument identified by the government to promote organic farming is less appropriate due to potential economic losses and its incompatibility with other policy goals of the government.

1. Economic cost to the society
When converting from conventional agriculture into organic farming, the government should weigh the technological, environmental, and economic costs and benefits. The preliminary findings of the studies conducted by the SAEA on potential economic losses of the import ban and respective estimations are given below for your consideration.

(a) Agronomic studies reveal that the average yields from paddy can drop by 25% if chemical fertilisers are fully replaced by organic fertilisers. This loss in productivity could reduce the profitability of paddy farming by 33%, and rice consumption by 27%, if paddy is cultivated just with organic fertilisers with a complete ban on rice imports. In contrast, applying organic fertilizer with the recommended dosages of chemical fertilisers would improve the profitability of farming by 16%.