In April this year, the government of Sri Lanka unveiled its rather ambitious plan to become the first nation in the world to return to strictly organic farming and in one fell swoop banned the importation and use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. The change in agricultural policy, according to Sri Lankan President Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapaksa, was to “systematically and sustainably fulfil the priorities identified” to make Sri Lanka a green economy.
The move was immediately met with resistance and protests from farmers anticipating a lowering in yields from crops. When food prices soared last month in the midst of growing shortages owing to the ban on fertilizers as well as significant crops lost to bad weather, the government caved, lifting the ban on chemical agricultural imports.
Though the government insists that the reversal is only temporary and that Sri Lanka is committed to green agricultural practices, experts in the field are doubtful that this will come to fruition anytime soon. Sri Lanka’s primary food staple is rice, which is cultivated in two seasons, is heavily dependent on fertilisers and yields some two million metric tonnes per year. Then there is its world-renowned tea, which, along with rubber, is a major source of foreign exchange. Farmers in Sri Lanka also cultivate other crops including cashew, coconut, sugarcane, oil palm, fruits, vegetables, and rapeseed (oilseed). Food imports include wheat, lentils, potatoes, onions, dairy products, meat and animal feed among other items. For the year 2020, according to the International Trade Administration website, Sri Lanka’s food import bill was US$1.6 billion. It is likely to be higher this year and in 2022 as well, since it is predicted that it would take that long for the sector to fully recover.
In the wake of the ban on chemical agricultural additives, protests by farmers, and its subsequent reversal, there has been much debate in Asia, and in the West as well, as to whether the quantum leap to organic farming (the Sri Lankan government had begun sourcing organic fertilizers) was ignorant and ill-advised or brilliant, but untimely. Some commentators have, and quite rightly so, factored COVID-19 into the equation. The effects of the pandemic, which are still reverberating around the world, have been felt everywhere; even in the agricultural sector. Meanwhile, account also has to be taken of climate change, the effects of which for years have been and continue to be a veritable thorn in the side of global agriculture.
What is known for sure, based on extensive studies done by scientists over the years, is that the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides poses serious risks to humans and the environment. Farm and production workers who have to handle pesticides, sometimes daily, are at high risk for contracting illnesses, such as cancers, as well as pesticide poisoning. Further, studies have revealed that samples taken from fruits and vegetables after they were harvested and sold found that they had residues of pesticides.
In terms of the environment, pesticides are known to contaminate soil and water, as well as kill fish, birds, beneficial insects, and the plants they are meant to protect. Notwithstanding all that, these chemicals are still beneficial in the agricultural industry as they do protect crops from pests and serve to maximise harvest yields. For many countries, when the deleterious impacts of agricultural chemicals are weighed against their cost benefits the result is a Catch-22 situation.
Sri Lanka’s daring dive into becoming fully organic in its agricultural production was perhaps an idea a little ahead of its time. Maybe a better approach would be to phase in the organic practices to allow farmers time to adjust, while at the same time advancing education and awareness of the health and environmental benefits of non-chemical agriculture as opposed to the status quo.
Several decades ago, Guyana was in a not-dissimilar situation. In our case, however, there were bans on the importation of wheat flour and preserved foods such as canned fish, fruit and split peas. Other food imports like cooking oil and powdered milk were scarce as there was no foreign exchange available to purchase them. As was the case in Sri Lanka, the change was swift and people had no time to adjust. Many baulked at the alternatives offered by the then PNC government to push self-sufficiency and turned to underground imports and clandestine sales, which financially benefited a small minority.
Today, many of the replacements proposed by the then government, which were and are still readily available in our country, are among the higher-priced items found on supermarket shelves around the world. For example, rice and cassava flours, which many found abhorrent back then, are in common use particularly in the West as they allow people with Celiac disease and other gluten disorders to enjoy baked goods.
The underlying theme here is that change is better received when it is phased in. Sri Lanka’s experience should give everyone pause for thought. Organic farming, which was the norm in days of yore, should not be seen as a step backward; it is in fact the ideal that will in the long term save agriculture. What it needs is perhaps a multi-year plan.
In the Guyana situation, self-sufficiency in food was then and is now an objective that ought to be on the front burner. This is imperative for many reasons. For a country with a historical agricultural foundation, our food import bill is atrocious. Education, awareness and nurturing a love for and pride in what we produce are key to helping us acknowledge and embrace the path we should be trodding. Maybe this government will consider continuing the transition started so long ago.
