By Raj Gonsalkorale
The
President and the government is urged to at least postpone the decision made to
ban the import of inorganic fertiliser at least for one year until it has had
time to consult widely with experts and arrive at a more informed decision. Depriving
some crops with inorganic fertiliser in the immediate term, and importing
organic fertiliser as a substitute could be catastrophic in many ways.
Judging
by comments made by politicians and even some experts” on the subject of
fertilisers, both organic and inorganic, it appears there is a clear need for a
better understanding on the pros and cons of using either or both categories of
fertilisers.
The
entire discourse on the fertiliser issue seems to be riddled with confusing and
incomplete statements. What some understood to be a policy decision applicable
to the current season, which is the Yala season is now understood to be
from the following Maha season. The Minister for Agriculture also was
heard in Parliament stating that organic fertiliser is currently being imported
by some 20 importers and that the government will not import it. If his
statement was correctly heard, he is saying that the country is already
importing unwanted, undesired foreign substances and living matter and
polluting and even poisoning the ground and possibly, ground water. He was also
heard saying that there is enough stock of fertiliser for the current season,
assuming the available stock referred to inorganic stock, although some
feedback from growers seemed to indicate they do not have adequate fertiliser
for this season.
The
government must realise that the policy decision on the banning of imports of
inorganic fertiliser, and how it is being implemented, information on the
status quo when it comes to availability of fertiliser (organic and inorganic),
and how it plans to address the gap between the requirement for organic
fertiliser and what might be available locally and how they intend increasing
the manufacture of it over the next few years, how they would contend with the
after effects of not providing some crops with its essential nutrients found in
inorganic fertiliser, and other related consequences will be managed. Perhaps a
comprehensive press statement that covers all aspects will be not just helpful,
but essential.
In
a wide ranging opinion by Professor Janendra De Costa, Professor of Crop
Science at the University of Peradeniya (See The Fertiliser Saga; A Considered
Opinion, https://island.lk/fertilizer-saga-in-sri-lanka-a-considered-opinion/), a well-researched and
balanced opinion, Professor De Costa explains how a balance could be found
between the progressive reduction of inorganic fertiliser and the increase in
use of organic fertiliser, without endangering the health of people, with a
guided, guarded and selective use of inorganic fertiliser, needed to ensure
food security and export earnings in the immediate and medium term, and a self-sufficiency
program for organic fertiliser through local manufacture. Resorting to
importation of organic fertiliser with all its negatives associated with the
introduction of unwanted evils that come when importing organic fertiliser, and
creating a potential catastrophe even in the nature of a devastating plague
that could impact very seriously on the country’s agrarian economy.
Readers
are urged to consider the opinion expressed by Professor De Costa, and get
clarity on why fertiliser is needed, and also the role played by inorganic
fertiliser in particular for crops like Tea, Rubber and Coconut, and Rice, and
how organic fertiliser introduction could be achieved without a disruption to
crop yield, which will have a direct cascading effect on foreign exchange
earnings and also on the country’s food security. Some have questioned,
cynically perhaps, whether food importation is the real desired outcome of this
sudden shift to organic fertiliser.
The
merits associated with not using inorganic fertiliser are many, and health
benefits are significant. Neither Professor Costa nor any other person
questions these benefits or the duty of care that is owed to the people of the
country. Inorganic fertiliser manufacture is also very expensive and using the
money spent on importing it could be better used to manufacture organic
fertiliser.
However,
in assessing benefits of using it for a better crop yield, at least in regard
to some crops where subsidies are extended, it is possible that the costs may outweigh
the benefits in regard to some crops if the actual cost rather than subsidised
costs are taken as the cost of inputs.
Whilst
not wishing to label it as a benefit in using inorganic fertiliser, the reality
as pointed out by Professor De Costa, in the role played by inorganic
fertiliser for Tea, Rubber and Coconut, and Rice output, Sri Lanka’s key
foreign exchange earners, and the staple food of Sri Lankans, Rice, is indeed a
benefit or could even be labelled a necessary evil” for this key export based
agriculture industry which could have a significant downturn in yield, and
therefore export earnings, in attempting to switch virtually overnight to
organic fertiliser. In regard to Rice, such a drop in yield will result in the
need to import Rice. Ironically, such imports of Rice will very likely be from
inorganic fertiliser fed Paddy.
Besides
the pros and cons associated with the fertiliser issue, the timing of the
decision to impose a total ban on imports of inorganic fertiliser, switching to
organic fertiliser, reliance on imported organic fertiliser to meet gaps in
demand for it along with all the pitfalls associated with imported organic
fertiliser, looks like a self-inflicted punishment, when this decision is considered
from the troubled environment faced by Sri Lanka at present. It has more than
enough of a share of bad luck and bad management. First, the COVID pandemic,
which has impacted on the country’s health, education, the economy and brought
out the worst in the country’s citizens, then the X Press ship linked pollution
that will affect the environment of the country for more than 100 years
according to several experts, and the rain and floods ravaging the country that
poses a serious danger to the lives of many, and the country’s agriculture and
food production.
The
pit falls associated with importing organic fertiliser is explained by Professor
De Costa as follows, Almost all organic fertilizers,
being material of plant, animal or human origin, retain
a diverse population of microorganisms. Unlike
inorganic fertilizers, which are inert material, organic
fertilizers are live material.
Microorganisms, whether in soils, plants or any other location or entity, are often highly environment-specific. Introduction of such alien microorganisms to Sri Lankan soils could cause all types of unforeseen interactions with local microorganisms. Some of these
interactions could have environmental repercussions, which are irreversible as once
released to the
soil, these alien microorganisms cannot be ‘recalled back’. Therefore, it is
always advisable and safer to develop organic fertilizers locally rather than importing from
overseas.
Sterilization of imported organic fertilizer to kill all alien microorganisms via a
process of fumigation after importation is suggested as a solution to this problem.
However, in view of
the large quantities of organic fertilizers that are required to be imported and the toxicity levels
of the chemicals that are used in fumigation could lead to environmental issues that the organic
fertilizers are aiming
to prevent. The Cabinet Minister of Agriculture went on record saying that only sterilized organic fertilizer conforming to quality
standards acceptable to a
government-appointed expert committee will be imported. Given the poor record of regulation, implementation and enforcement of quality standards on a range of items, both imported and
locally-produced and both agricultural and non-agricultural, it remains to be seen whether these promises will be fulfilled”
In
reading Professor De Costa’s article, one gets the impression that the hurried
decision to impose and immediate ban on inorganic fertiliser has been a
decision based on an inadequate degree of consultation with experts on this
subject. In this regard, the President and the government is also urged to
consider the issue of fertiliser from a wider perspective of land management,
and a long term policy on it with immediate, medium term and long term
objectives.
As
the President rightly acknowledged at the inauguration of the Investment Forum
on the 7th June, the long term goal should be to produce more with
less, meaning using research and development to produce crop varieties that
will yield higher crops using less land. This objective can only be achieved
through research and development work and not by chance activity. In this
regard, it is abysmal that, according to Professor De Costa, the country spends
only 0.11 % of GDP on research and development including in Agriculture.
The
answer to a higher yield is not to use more land in order to achieve that goal.
Unless someone has missed it, Sri Lanka is not exactly blessed with huge tracts
of arable land!
Land
management and a policy on land management should also take into account the
current use of land for different agriculture products, and the future of such
products. This is especially relevant when it comes to Tea, Rubber and Coconut.
Plucking tea and tapping rubber is increasingly becoming a challenge, and is
predicted to be even more of a challenge say in 10-20 years.
Mechanisation
of this activity may be a possibility, but in regard to Tea, the land terrain
in most Tea growing areas will be a challenge by itself for mechanisation. Again,
research work will be needed as to how best technology could be used to find
solutions to such difficulties. In the event some land that is presently used
for Tea and Rubber becomes so unproductive and therefore unprofitable, thought
will have to be given as to what other agricultural use such land can be
employed to serve the needs of the country.
As
regards coconut, an assessment of whether land used for coconut cultivation is
optimally used or not is an assessment that will have to be made. In some
countries land used for coconut cultivation is also used for other crops like
cocoa and coffee. Perhaps even crops
like cinnamon, and other spices may be possible in some areas.
Optimum
use of land therefore has a direct relationship to fertiliser as all
agricultural products need to be fed, either with inorganic fertiliser or
organic fertiliser. The better, safer, cheaper and healthier option is to use
organic fertiliser indigenously produced and on lands that has been acclimatised
to organic fertiliser. This however, needs to be done progressively, ensuring
there is no reduction in crop yield and no threat to food security in the
country.
Water
management is the other key aspect that needs to be considered in formulating a
land management policy. Agriculture without water is not a possibility and
envisaged land use needs to be considered along with availability of water to
sustain the use of land for agriculture.
The
government is therefore urged to consider the issue of fertiliser more
holistically and from the wider perspective of a policy on land management, which
must also include water management, and do so through a long term plan that has
short term, medium and long term objectives and relevant action plans, targets
and milestones. This requires an extensive consultation process, not just with
experts, but also with people who are currently engaged in agriculture, health
officials, community leaders and economists, and very importantly, the private
sector.
It
is hoped that the government will commence such a consultative process and
perhaps by the middle of 2022, come up with a long term vision and a plan that
is suitable for the country and which has broad acceptance of the people,
therefore a sense of ownership of the plan.
The
government is also urged to partner with the private sector in the country, and
with universities (we have 17 of them now), so that the future direction when
it comes to land management encompasses the interconnected, mutually dependent
aspects which are all driven by research and development and private sector
entrepreneurship.
Unfortunate
as it is, it needs to be stated that the calibre and the quality of the
country’s elected representatives, even highly educated academics who have
turned politicians, leaves much to be desired, and government driven
entrepreneurship would be an oxymoronic contradiction, and this task should be
one that is driven and managed by the private sector in combination with
universities that will be responsible for research and development work.
The
planning horizon should not be when the next election is to be held, but how
many generations are to be advantaged with sound, long term policy decisions.
