The Sri Lankan Crisis and Organic Farming
The Sri Lankan crisis and the subsequent economic turmoil has generated much discussion and concern, especially from a public policy perspective in light of the failure of multiple policies simultaneously. The crisis is attributable to a number of factors — from the global financial crunch of 2008 to the heavy borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, to a multitude of impractical and faulty domestic policies all culminating in an economic nadir that was heightened by politics and domestic strife. Of these, one of the many policy failures of the Sri Lankan government was the abrupt ban of chemical fertilizers and the declaration to go organic.
At first glance, especially seeing the nation’s current state of anarchy, the impulse might be to criticize the seeming impracticality of organic farming as a policy in itself — however, this article attempts to analyze where and why the policy went wrong, rather than default to superficial explanations. After all, agricultural, economic, and environmental policies must all function in tandem and in harmony if the ambitious shift to organic is envisioned or intended. The analysis in this article shall proceed by covering the following aspects:
- The Role/Contribution of Organic Farming to the Sri Lankan Crisis
- An Overview of Successes/Policy Case Studies
- Making the Case for the Need for Organic Farming
- Organic Farming and Sri Lanka’s Crisis
Organic Farming and Sri Lanka’s Crisis
The Rajapaksa government’s 2019 “National Policy Framework Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor” promised a “revolution” in the use of fertilizer and aimed at producing and promoting the use of organic over synthetic fertilizer. But the country’s farmers were taken aback when Rajapaksa announced a total and immediate ban on the import of chemical fertilizer in 2020 to combat rising global fertilizer prices and outflow of foreign currency, in lieu of the previously planned rollback over a ten-year period. It was a misguided attempt to improve the foreign currency deficit rather than a more altruistic move aimed at environmental or planetary well-being. What resulted was nothing short of a catastrophe. The yield on major crops like paddy fell drastically, leading to food shortages and an increase in the price of the staple food by about 30%. Tea exports, which made up about 1.5% of the nation’s GDP, bringing in about $1.3 billion annually, went down by 18%. With the COVID-19 pandemic badly hitting the country’s tourism sector, Sri Lanka’s currency and national budget were in dire straits, to add to the massive debt to the IMF that had already been snowballing. The corresponding dip in overall export earnings have led to a situation where the government lacks foreign currency reserves to even purchase essentials such as food grains, petrol and medicines, and widespread protests across the country reflect this. The famine-like grave circumstance, coupled with the rising inflation have hung Sri Lanka’s farmers high and dry despite the promised compensation to the tune of 40 billion rupees.
The fears surrounding a transition to organic farming are exemplified by the events that transpired in such a short time frame in Sri Lanka. From the reliance on the organic farming lobby to craft and push this policy to the plan to depend on wetlands for the production of biofertilizer, a lot went wrong concurrently in Sri Lanka. However, just because Sri Lanka failed in its implementation of this policy and led to precipitating an already-brewing economic crisis, does not necessarily mean that countries similarly dependent on agrochemical products need to fear a shift to organic farming. We must be careful not to let Sri Lanka’s failure cloud the overall positive perception and the true benefits of organic farming. A tried and tested model for a successful transition to fully organic farming exists and has been achieved, demonstrated by the state of Sikkim in north-eastern India.
The Sikkim Case Study
Sikkim began on its path to a fully organic state in 2010 through the “Sikkim Organic Mission”, a journey which began in 2003 through the discouraging of the use of chemical fertilizer and ended in 2016 when it was formally declared a 100% organic state after its entire agricultural area was converted to ‘certified organic’. The state’s consumption of chemical fertilizer per hectare was already low (at 5.8 kg) and growers of its main cash crops such as cardamom had not been using fertilizer by default. The government first reduced the subsidy on fertilizer to disincentivize its use and aided the rejuvenation of natural springs and improved groundwater aquifers and rainwater harvesting systems. The water conservation efforts and the subsequent focus on farmer education and training in practices such as vermi-composting and non-pesticide pest management practices paid off.
While the exact Sikkim model is perhaps difficult to emulate in the same method in every one of India’s diverse agro-climatic zones, what can be taken away is the manner in which it was implemented with great thought and long-term planning, through farmer education on indigenous methods of pest control, multi/inter cropping, and return to traditional farming and water conservation practices. States like Punjab and Haryana, for instance, have such varying sizes of farmlands that it would be difficult to implement a uniform policy without gathering data and conducting extensive research and surveys, however, it cannot be written off as an impossible task.
Bhutan
Bhutan’s government announced an Organic Agriculture policy in 2008. Since then, chemical fertilizers and pesticides compliant with IFOAM regulations (rock-phosphate and mineral potassium not enriched by chemical processes) are being slowly phased out over 10-12 years, a task that is seemingly not as difficult seeing as the majority of Bhutanese agricultural land is, by default, already organic. Importantly, unlike Sikkim, Bhutan did not stress on organic certification except on export goods. Certification is expensive, to the tune of thousands of dollars, and is required to be renewed yearly. Bhutan choosing not to certify goods being produced for the domestic market which do not carry a price markup benefits the farmers by cutting the costs associated with organic farming.
Seeing as Bhutan is largely dependent on India for its rice, food self-sufficiency was not a very practical goal, and so far only certain regions of Bhutan were able to achieve fully organic status, since Bhutan’s commercial farmers are reluctant to give up chemical fertilizer for crops like mandarins, apples and potato. The reliance now is placed on research centres to discover (or re-discover) chemical-free methods to boost the yield for these crops. Bhutan’s organic goal was pushed from 2020 to 2035. Much like Bhutan, Mexico and Cuba view sustainable agriculture as a solution to problems introduced to the country along with modernization. However, the organic sector faces many challenges, including a lack of supply-and-demand tussle and competitive markets, insufficient technical advancements, and an overall lack of awareness and farmer training.
The Need for Organic
Despite Bhutan’s struggles, it is important to incentivize and rally for a transition to organic farming in India in any sector and/or region possible, even if it must begin with crop-specific strategies. Fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides from the soil and water enter the food chain and infamously bio-magnify when they reach animal tissue, and a multitude of synthetic chemicals invented since the dawn of the industrial revolution have been clearly linked to various cancers and genetic disorders — as if the microplastics and heavy metals in our food, air, and water weren’t enough of a hazard, we are spraying toxins onto the food we consume and into our biome.
The benefits of organic farming need not be spelt out, and are common knowledge at this point. A biological approach to pest control and farming is holistic, and based on knowledge of the ecological niche of both the plant and the pest. Rachel Carson, the author of the revolutionary book Silent Spring that mounted an environmental movement against the use of synthetic pesticides, phrases it as making a choice between a “smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed toward self-destruction” and the road less travelled, one that “assures our preservation of the earth.” She called out the modern notion of man exercising control over nature as one “conceived in arrogance”, wherein it is assumed that nature only exists for the convenience of and economic enrichment of man.
Organic farming is first and foremost kind to the farmer himself. Limiting exposure to toxic poisons that cause skin conditions, respiratory issues, and cancers depending upon the length of exposure and the reduction of occupational hazard would be the first victory of this farming movement. Continuing down the path of dependence on more and more inorganic chemicals as more and more pests and weeds develop resistance is simply not a sustainable practice long-term.
A distinction needs to be drawn between farming centered around the production of organic products for the urban market and the true practice of traditional farming. “Organic” products for urban supermarkets are not necessarily produced using organic manure or traditional methods, and simply switching packaging and product from one form of consumerism to another in the form of a “trend” or a “fad” does not contribute to creating truly organic ecosystems.
The next essay in this series can be accessed here.
Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu. Published by Brhat.