By Ifham Nizam

The new Overarching Agriculture Policy (OAP) developed by the Department of National Planning of Sri Lanka (still to be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers) is considered a holistic approach to agriculture development covering eight major segments in the agricultural economy, namely, food crops, plantation crops, export agricultural crops, livestock and poultry, fisheries, agrarian services, irrigation, and Environment, and adequately covers climate change as a cross-cutting issue to support future development of agriculture, says Prof. Buddhi Marambe, Senior Professor-Weed Science, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya.

Professor Marambe is the President – Weed Science Society of Sri Lanka (WSSSL), Chairman, National Invasive Species Specialist Group (NISSG), Ministry of Environment and Member. National Experts Committee on Climate Change Adaptation (NECCCA), Ministry of Environment. In an interview with The Island he said that all in all, there were many initiatives by Sri Lanka to tackle issues related to climate change in Agriculture. “Researchers, scientists, academic private sector and practitioners in Sri Lanka have adopted such technologies introduced by the state and private sector agencies, which is encouraging. There is still more to be done. We need to keep the momentum, and review and assess what has been done in the past for the agriculture sector in tackling the dangerous climate change. The efforts that are technologically-sound should continue. With sound policies, all sectors related to agriculture should be in a position to streamline climate change concerns into their respective programmes and projects”.

Excerpts of the interview

The Island: Are you happy with the policy initiatives when it comes to climate change and adaptation on agricultural sector?

Professor: The answer is yes. Sri Lanka has laid a strong foundation to tackle issues related to climate change by adopting the National Climate Change Policy in 2012, which deals with both components in tackling climate change, i.e. adaptation (coping up) and mitigation [reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions]. Before the policy was adopted, we had a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2011-2016 based on the climate vulnerability mapping on the major economic sectors done in 2009-2010 period. Later the level of climate vulnerability was assessed for the agriculture sector at district level in 2013 by the Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the UNDP, with studies now being expanded to divisional secretariat level. Scientists from the Natural resource Management Center (NRMC) of the Department of Agriculture, led by the scientists like Dr. Ranjith Punyawardena, are currently involved in such studies with the support of scientists from the other agencies. The Climate Change Secretariat (CCS) of the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife Resources (MEWR) coordinates activities related to the climate change being the focal point for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the National Designated Authority (NDA) to the Green Climate Fund. Two National Expert Committees on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation have been established by the CCS to advise the MEWR on policy level decision making in climate change related matters, including agriculture. The country has also prepared its National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for climate change for the period 2016-2025, following the adoption of Paris Agreement in mid-2016, where agriculture and food security have been a priority consideration. The country has also developed the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) in 2016 and currently in the process of updating the same to identify actions even to minimize GHG emissions from agriculture. The Provincial Adaptation Plans to cover 9 provinces are now in the making. The state and private sector agencies that are responsible for agricultural development of the country have set their targets accordingly, giving due consideration to climate change scenarios. In the field of agriculture, adaptation is a priority to developing countries like Sri Lanka. Accordingly, promotion of climate-smart and precision agricultural technologies focusing mainly on productivity enhancement of crops under changing climate, development of ultra-short age rice varieties (maturating in about 80-85 days) which are drought tolerant or escaping drought, promoting mid-season cultivation of short-age drought tolerant food crops such as mung bean in paddy fields, adopting water saving techniques such as drip irrigation in selected crops, protected agriculture technologies, development of drought-tolerant tea cultivar TRI 5000 series to tackle climate change, crop-animal integrated farming to promote climate resilience in the agriculture systems are some examples to show that we as a country is prepared and moving forward in facing climate challenges. The new Government Policy Framework on “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor” does not highlight the term climate change, however, adequate attention has been given to promote environmentally-friendly agriculture, which has direct implications on tackling climate change. The new Overarching Agriculture Policy (OAP) developed by the Department of National Planning of Sri Lanka (still to be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers) has considered the holistic approach for agriculture development covering eight major segments in the agricultural economy, namely, food crops, plantation crops, export agricultural crops, livestock and poultry, fisheries, agrarian services, irrigation, and Environment, and adequately covers climate change as a cross cutting issue to support future development of agriculture. All in all, there are many initiatives that have been taken by Sri Lanka to tackle issues related to climate change in Agriculture. Researchers, scientists, academic private sector and practitioners in Sri Lanka as a whole have adopted such technologies introduced by the state and private sector agencies, which is encouraging. There is still more to be done. We need to keep the momentum, and review and assess what has been done in the past for the agriculture sector in tackling the dangerous climate change. The efforts that are technologically-sound should continue. With sound policies, all sectors related to agriculture should be in a position to streamline climate change concerns into their respective programmes and projects.

The Island: About 30 per cent of Sri Lanka’s population are engaged in agriculture, do you think successive governments have done enough for them?

Prof: The labour force in agriculture in Sri Lanka has reduced from 50% in 1980 to 25.5% in 2018. The labour productivity in agriculture has been positive since 1980, which reached LKR 0.3 million in 2017 and LKR 0.33 million in 2018 (per labour unit per year). The labour involvement in agriculture has decreased owing to many reasons, specifically migration to urban and other economic sectors and mechanization in agriculture. Youth moving away from agriculture has been a popularly known reason and modernization of the sector with novel and affordable technology is the key for further improvement of labour productivity in agriculture and retention of the young and skilled labour that is attracted to agriculture. As for doing justice to the farming community by the government of Sri Lanka – I have mixed feelings. Since independence, successive governments have given priority to make Sri Lanka self-sufficient in rice with more investments in research and development. However, other crop sectors and animal production sector have not received the same treatment. Our farming community have been struggling to feed the nation. They need tangible support, not political pledges. More attention need to be paid to infuse new technology and making the technology affordable to those in the sector, to ensure increase in labour productivity and to support the livelihood of the farming community. Provision of subsidies (such as for fertilizer), price controls, and insurance schemes to support the agriculture production and productivity in the country have been key interventions by the government of Sri Lanka, to support livelihood of the practitioners in agriculture. However, timely availability of such inputs, including good quality seeds and planting material, is a must to reap richer harvests without affecting the livelihood of the practitioners. There is no need of rocket science to decide on imports of agricultural inputs depending on the seasonality of crops. What the dedicated farmers in Sri Lanka require is to have timely supply of inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and organic matter) and an effective market mechanism. The agricultural practitioners have been flooded with many promises by successive governments, but they have been taken on a ride continuously. Since 1978, the country has been more inclined to import food requirements despite the potential of producing certain food and feed crops such maize, mung bean, green chilli, etc., and dairy cattle in the case of animal production. We have undermined our genetic potential in and biodiversity. In the food crops, with our scientists been able to develop the hybrids and improved production technologies, we are in a position to boost the productivity levels of food crops and animals considering limitations to expand land availability for agriculture. Unfortunately, limited attention have been paid to improve the livestock sector. Private-public partnership is a must to achieve productivity targets with assured local and export markets for the agricultural products. Import restrictions imposed for some food crops in crisis situations would assist in this effort however, will not be a good practice in scenarios where international trade plays a major role.

The Island: Your thoughts on food losses as waste during COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the agricultural sector?

Prof: COVID-19 made many issues that the agriculture sector has faced over many years, to surface at a magnitude that many of us did not even dreamt of. The food supply chain collapsed in the country at least for a shorter time period, not only leaving producers at a precarious position, but leaving many agencies still wondering what to be done. Closure of markets, national and regional lockdowns, issues related to transport, etc. during the COVID-19 pandemic rendered the situation more difficult to handle. The private sector itself, despite their contribution to the agricultural development of the country, was taken by surprise indicating that the so-called “engine of growth” is not prepared in order to face such a crisis. This was true for both crop and animal products, affecting both the industries badly. The government made a valiant attempt to intervene, by means of permitting food transport and agricultural operations amidst islandwide curfew and lockdown, but still failed to cope up with the situation owing to the complexity of the food supply chain, as we learned from many media reports. Panic buying resulting in empty shelves in the markets certainly would have increased food losses due to excess storage of food in homesteads, though scientifically valid analysis on this matter is not available yet. In contrary less food demand at later stages also would have contributed to food losses to a certain extent. When any supply chain collapses, it is natural that both the producers and consumers (not to forget the other players) feel the impact.

The Island: What about the perishables and 20 to 40 per cent harvest losses?

Prof: This has been a long-discussed topic with limited success in terms of practical solutions. The disruption to the food supply chain, as was evident in the COVID-19 pandemic, has only cautioned us further to look into this matter deeper in finding a long-lasting sustainable solution. Unfortunate part is that the whole society speaks of the need for reducing post harvest losses when there is a glut in the market. It is always too late – as the society including the researchers and academia, and the industry, we are not prepared to meet the challenges. We plan our cultivation well, but we do not plan for the post-harvest operations and value addition in the same manner. This is the key issue. Once again, the state and private sector organizations should chip-in at early stages of cultivation and plan for the future to support the agriculture community. Special analysis is not required to conclude that there is a glut of food products in the markets during specific time period of the year such as December, March-April and July-August. This depends on the seasonality of the crops and the way farmers carry out their cultivation aiming at harvests at times when there is a high demand for the crop produce. We cannot start thinking what to do with the excess food at the time when we have a surplus. This can only be addressed through proper planning. Enough lessons are learned from repeated mistakes. Efforts have been made to educate practitioners on the quantities required in the case of different food products during different time periods of the year. The Department of Agriculture has developed a mobile app to educate the farming community in Sri Lanka regarding the requirements and market potential of different vegetable crops, which is upgraded twice a month (every 6th and 21st day of the month). Finally it is a matter of imposing certain rules and regulations to make sure what is required, including for post-harvest processing, being produced. Proper land use planning and directives based on market mechanisms are a must to overcome such problems in the future.

Asking farmers to do value addition for a better export price will not solve the issue at all, unless the mechanism is set to support product marketing at national and global levels.