Agriculture economists praise switch to organic farming but concerned over blanket ban on chemical fertiliser

Sri Lanka’s agriculture economists have welcomed a decision by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to adopt a Green Socio- Economic Model enabling the switch to organic farming from a chemical fertiliser-based model but have raised concerns on its application without due thought.

In a letter to the President, the Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association ( SAEA) said the new model would be critical to conserving the environment and improving human health.

“The 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,” it said.

It added that, “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.

However, the SAEA raised some concerns about the “appropriateness” of the newly introduced regulation to restrict forthwith the importation of chemical fertilisers and pesticides by the Gazette Extraordinary No 2226/48 of May 6, 2021, to achieve the above-mentioned broader development goal.

The association predicted 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, it said adding that the SAEA was proposing less costly policy alternatives in place of the newly introduced import ban.

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.

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

Furthermore the absence of chemical fertiliser would drastically reduce the productivity of the Vegetatively Propagated Tea (VPT). With a 35 percent productivity drop, the export volume of tea would go down from 279 to 181 million kg, causing an income loss of Rs. 84 billion. These losses could further be aggravated due to increased cost of labour to apply bulky organic fertilisers.

Coconut yields would go down by 30 percent if chemical fertilisers and pesticides are not applied leading to a loss in foreign exchange earnings as high as Rs.18 billion

(See www.sundaytimes.lk for the full text of the letter)