Banning fertiliser imports and agricultural productivity

Prof. Weeraratna’s letter (The Island, April 27), on “Banning fertilizer imports”, should be an eye-opener to the Government to reconsider the ban on importing fertilisers, which will have a devastating impact on our economy. His assessment that to supply the same amount of nitrogen provided by 100 kg of urea, two tons of compost have to be used is particularly a valid argument against the use of compost, alone, to supply the macronutrients for the healthy growth of crops. Furthermore, compost is a slow-release fertiliser and low in phosphorus and even the available phosphorus in compost is not released in a short time required for short term crops, such as rice and vegetables. Compost contains about 1-2% nitrogen, depending on the raw materials used to make it, and out of this only about 3% is immediately available for absorption by plants, and the rest of the nitrogen is released only during a period of 3-5 years. Similarly, phosphorus content of compost is around 1% which is also a slow-release fertiliser and not suitable for short term crops.

We have achieved self-sufficiency in rice due to the efforts of the Department of Agriculture and all these efforts will be in vain if we abruptly ban the import of fertiliser. While adding compost has some positive effects, such as improving soil texture and providing some micronutrients, it cannot entirely substitute the fertiliser requirements for high yielding varieties of rice which we use now. This will not only lower the income of farmers but will also require importing rice. Rice from other countries, particularly Bangladesh, is laden with arsenic, an extremely toxic element. It is worthwhile to note that compost, too, has some toxic metals, such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel in its composition.

One of the reasons given for banning fertiliser imports is that it causes the chronic kidney disease of unknown origin in Sri Lanka. This is absolutely a fallacious argument since only certain specific locations are affected by this disease. Jaffna and Puttalam districts, with intensive agriculture, where imported fertilisers are extensively used, are free from this disease. There are many other agricultural areas, where the same inorganic fertilisers are used, are free from the disease. This writer, who has worked on this disease, since 2003, showed that it is the groundwater fluoride that is responsible for the disease and this has been later confirmed by independent researchers. Meanwhile, a group of scientists, led by some scientists, who were apparently shown the reason by God Natha, were able to put forward an alternative cause, which is agrochemicals. However, there is no independent confirmation of the involvement of fertilisers, or pesticides, and this hypothesis remains unproven.

Inorganic fertilisers, we import, at the moment, are urea, superphosphate and potash. Out of these, phosphate fertilisers can be manufactured in Sri Lanka, using our own Eppawela rock phosphate. Government can save a considerable sum of money if we undertake to manufacture superphosphate fertilisers in the country. I have written many articles, in the past, and published in “The Island” on how to achieve this but no action has been taken by any of the Governments in the last two decades. Even more recently I was in a committee of experts where a comprehensive proposal was submitted, in 2018, to the Minister of Agriculture and again a similar proposal was submitted to the present Minister Chamal Rajapakse, in 2020. Cabinet has approved the manufacture of single superphosphate by Lanka Phosphate (Ltd.) at least on three times in the recent past. It was the previous Government of Chandrika Kumaratunga which tried to sell the Eppawela deposit to the McMoran company. Luckily for the country, supreme court intervened and in a landmark decision ruled to halt its sale to any foreign or a local company. According to this decision, only Lanka Phosphate Ltd has the sole right for the development of this resource. It appears that there is a stumbling block to implement this proposal and powerful politicians have always discouraged this venture because unlike selling the deposit they cannot demand any commissions from a government owned entity. When a former chairman of Lanka Phosphate tried to commence this superphosphate factory, he was unceremoniously removed from his post. At that time, a state bank was willing to fund the entire cost of the project as a bank loan. However, politics and petty greediness of politicians predominated and we import superphosphate fertiliser annually to the tune of around 10 billion rupees.

Construction of a super phosphate plant requires only around Rs. 5 billion. If the Government can instruct a major state bank to provide a loan for this amount, the pay-back period is only about 5 years since this is an extremely profitable venture.

Implementing crucial decisions such as abruptly banning fertiliser imports should be carefully considered including field trials where a comparison can be made regarding the application of compost versus synthetic fertiliser. Depending on such results a judicious choice can be made on banning future fertiliser imports.

Prof. O. A. Ileperuma