Sustainability: How that translates to

agriculture

Monday, 23 January 2017

Once cultivated, traditional paddy that is grown
organically will establish its own markets based on the
consumer demand
For the longest time the word sustainable agriculture was a
catch phrase only. It was discussed in national agenda and
strategies, political forums and even among United Nations
development goals.
Despite numerous discussions business went as usual and
farmers kept on applying chemicals to agricultural produce and
consumers ate them without questioning. However I admit to the
fact that there were small-scale interventions in terms of

promoting sustainable agriculture.

Motivated farmers drove most of these small-scale operations.
They had little or no support from the private sector or the
government agricultural institutes. There are several well-known
individuals and organisations that implement organic framing to
their available capacity.
In my view these operations were isolated efforts and had little
impact in terms of promoting organic agriculture at a national
level. Therefore, the popular model did not change. The fertiliser
sellers had the bigger say where farmers sometimes got advice
from them despite there being agricultural graduates who worked
as Agricultural Instructors.
Farmers who practiced agriculture with organic fertiliser had many
issues. Finding the required organic fertiliser was always an issue
since heavy amount of organic fertiliser was needed for an acre.
Most farmers could not meet the opportunity cost involved in
making organic fertiliser. They failed to make fertiliser available at
right amounts at the right time.
Organic agriculture practices most of the time require carefully
managed interventions especially related to water management.
This increases the overall management costs. Furthermore,
organic agriculture is generally associated with traditional paddy
varieties and they are hard to find in large quantities and are
expensive. Despite all these problems I argue that the biggest
issue was that they did not have a voice. There wasnt a
national program and an agenda backing them up.
The National Program on Toxin Free Food was the main program
that was implemented recently which had the full blessings of the
Government. Regardless of who conceptualised the program in
terms of getting it the necessary political backup, the program
itself is something that was essential to the country and to the

future of the organic agriculture efforts. The initial aim of the

program is on paddy and if things are successful there is the
possibility of rolling it out for other crops as well.
In addition, the Government has given special emphasis on the
development of the Trincomalee District as a sustainable green
district. The Trincomalee sustainable green district program goes
beyond organic agriculture. It focuses on rehabilitating the
traditional inland tank system that facilitate irrigation agriculture,
inland fisheries and rainwater harvest and also sustainable energy
and sustainable road systems.
Its only been two months for the program yet it is making a
considerable success and has already rehabilitated more than 10
inland tanks. Under this there are more than 30,000 farmers who
are practicing organic agriculture under rain-fed and irrigation
systems. Arguably these are the two main State-sponsored
interventions that promote sustainable agriculture. However the
important aspect is the coordination between the two programs
and resource sharing. Both these programs are focusing on
bringing back the traditional knowledge and practices of
agriculture therefore it related the topic of the articles.
The overall objective of the article is to see the relevance of these
programs in making the agriculture sector sustainable again for
the country. It is interesting to evaluate how these national
interventions are addressing the most serious issues faced by
sustainable/organic agriculture (I am referring to organic
agriculture as the major sustainable agriculture intervention but I
acknowledge other views as well).
Organic fertiliser
The popular perception is that organic fertiliser is something easy
to make. Many decades back the basic materials for organic
fertiliser such as leaves, cow dung, paddy husk and sawdust were
available abundantly at most agricultural households. However

times have changed and these ingredients are hard to find and
expensive. Therefore a significant cost is associated with finding
ingredients for the preparation for organic fertiliser.
Most farmers (almost all small-scale paddy farmers) try to
manufacture organic fertiliser by themselves. Hence they do not
see the cost involved in own labour. The interesting question that
should have been asked is, If you were to pay for someone to
make organic fertiliser at your house, how much would that be?
Farmers who manufacture organic fertiliser by themselves fail to
account this opportunity cost.
Therefore farmers cost of preparing organic fertiliser will increase
as they look for materials and make the fertiliser themselves.
Furthermore the amount of fertiliser needed is high. On average
farmers put 200Kg of chemical fertiliser per acre. Studies have
shown that on average a farmer has to put one ton of organic
fertiliser for an acre. Now the challenge is to come up with an
organic fertiliser that is affordable and requires less per acre.
The National Program on Toxin Free Food seems to have found a
successful solution. Through rigorous experimental research work
the program has been able to come up with a fertiliser mixture
that can be commercialised at an affordable price and uses on
average less than that of chemical fertiliser requirements per
acre.
However the challenge is now to see the adaptability of this by
the farmers. I have written previously that the price elasticity of
chemical fertiliser is relatively inelastic. This shows that a suitable
substitute is not in place for chemical fertiliser. It basically
highlights the opportunity cost of making organic fertiliser
available.
Now that we have found a suitable fertiliser, the challenge is to
make it available. Making this affordable solves a part of the

problem but still it has to be accessible. For that the supply chain
has to be developed. The important questions to ask are:
(1) Who will manufacture this fertiliser?
(2) How will it be distributed among the organic farmers?
(3) Who will sell this to the organic farmer?
Whether the fertiliser should be manufactured by a private
organisation or the Government is also an important question to
answer. Giving or selling this to a private organisation may result
in an organic fertiliser monopoly market. On the other hand
manufacturing this by a Government organisation would result in
control over the price yet there could be inefficiencies as we see
in most State-owned institutes. Therefore one should seriously
consider whether a public-private partnership would be an
optimal solution. Ideally this fertiliser should be available at
village level so that every farmer has easy access.
Costs associated with seeds and cultivation practices
As mentioned before, the popular thought is that organic fertiliser
is something closely associated with traditional paddy varieties.
This proposition has many downsides. Traditional paddy varieties
are fast disappearing. Sri Lanka was home to more than 2,000
traditional paddy varieties, however only a handful exists. Many
farmers go to great extents in finding the necessary amounts of
seed paddy. Some farmers have to first build the seed paddy
stock before cultivations. Therefore it is fair to say that traditional
paddy varieties are a scare resource.
In addition traditional paddy varieties yield less compared to new
improved paddy varieties (however I have seen experts who differ
on this). Therefore when considering sustainable organic
agriculture, traditional paddy varieties might create only a little
motivation among farmers.

One attractive proposition is to promote organic farming with

new, improved paddy varieties. There is a perception that organic
fertiliser does not work very well with new, improved varieties
since they are made to respond to chemical fertiliser. Field
research under the National Program on Toxin Free Food has
shown that new improved varieties are giving significantly higher
yields under organic fertiliser. Hence it solves the main problem of
cost and availability of seed paddy and low yields. However this
still does not address one of the major issues with respect to
using new improved varieties for organic farming.
The traditional varieties are known to have many medicinal
properties and much research work proves this. These medicinal
qualities, especially qualities such as low glycaemic index, cannot
be expected from new improved varieties. Furthermore, such
qualities allow the farmers to attract higher prices. Such benefits
will be foregone if only new improved varieties are adopted.
Therefore what is ideal is to have a mix of traditional as well as
new improved varieties.
Once cultivated, traditional paddy that is grown organically will
establish its own markets based on the consumer demand. This is
fine since it is only a subset of consumers who demand traditional
rice and a higher market share can be attracted if other rice
varieties are also integrated into the cultivation mix. The price of
the new, improved rice grown organically will have a lower price
compared to traditional rice grown organically.
Water management is a vital component of paddy farming. Cost
of water management could have a significant impact on fertiliser
use. Water management cost could compete against the cost for
fertiliser and farmers might end up using less than required when
water management cost goes high (this is a hypothesis that is yet
to be proven through research work).

There are field level activities prescribed by farmers to minimise

the cost associated with water management. They are mainly
focused on water conservation. However, for a national program
these small-scale interventions might not be enough. The
Trincomalee sustainable green district program has a better
solution for that. Under this program a large collection of inland
tanks will be rehabilitated, giving birth to the traditional cascade
tank system. These systems come from the era of kings and
proven to be very effective way of providing and managing
irrigation water. Once these systems are in place, paddy farming
can be sustainable in terms of managing costs associated with
water management.

Certifications
Organic paddy markets in Sri Lanka work mainly on trust and
personal recommendations. As I have written many times, the
consumer is interested in knowing How organic is organic. The
organic certification system is costly, therefore individual farmers
are not motivated in adopting them. Rather they depend on the
recommendations of existing consumers, which is cheaper for
them.
Some farmers have gone to the extent of describing how they
cultivate in the packaging. This is again a strategy to avoid the
cost of getting a proper certification. However, these activities will
not be sufficient to drive a national program. Once there are
many farmers in the value chain, it will be hard to distinguish
each producer and a certification system becomes essential.

At the initial stage it may not be possible for each and every
farmer to adopt organic certification. Therefore a certification is
needed which might not be the most advanced but which would
serve the purpose of the organic rice value chain. The best
solution is to implement a certification system that can be
monitored and controlled by the Government itself. Once the
markets evolve, farmers can adopt more sophisticated
certifications as required by the consumers.
When it comes to organic rice the certification might have to be
tailor made. The majority of paddy lands that are being converted
to organic are in fact the existing inorganic paddy lands.
Therefore they already carry chemicals that have been dumped
over time. On average it will take close to five years to remove
the accumulated chemicals (this is based on the discussion I had
among many organic farmers). Hence getting an organic
certification for such a land will be problematic.
The National Program on Toxin Free Food has come up with a
smart solution for this. For all the converted lands an initial
certification will be issued that says the land is cultivated as
organic only for that particular season. For every season the
land/soil will be tested and a certification is issued. The complete
organic certification will be issued once the land is cleared after
soil tests.
One of the arguments against a Government-managed
certification system was that it might create loopholes for farmers
to justify their lands as organic when it is actually not. The
proposed approach answers that concern and would probably
help to build the trust among consumers. Now the consumer can
make a conscious decision whether to buy organic rice that is
partially organic or fully organic. The two categories might yield
different prices for obvious reasons but that is how the price
signals should work.

Prices and markets

I believe that organic produce should attract higher prices.
Organic produce brings in something that other produce does not.
These can be broadly categorised as Ecological Goods and
Services (EGSs). Therefore they should attract a higher price.
Price premium is based on two things: the opportunity cost of
supply by farmers and the willingness to pay by the consumers.
At one point there has to be a tradeoff between these two
elements and markets would clear at a particular quantity and
price. This price setting is much more sustainable since it takes
into account the proper market signals, the opportunity cost and
the willingness to pay.
However, there could be a situation where the policymakers
would prefer to provide organic rice at an affordable price to the
consumer by absorbing the price premium to Government
expenditure. The Government in this case will buy the organic rice
at a higher price that reflects the opportunity cost of supply and
will sell at a price that reflects the willingness to pay. The
difference will be borne by the Government. While this could be a
short-term solution that will encourage more farmers to cultivate
and more consumers to consume organic rice, in my view it is not
a sustainable solution. Subsidies in my view should be short-term
solutions, not long-term.
However, one of the biggest problems that these national efforts
on sustainable agriculture will face is the shortage of storage
facilities. Once farmers start cultivating on a large scale, they
would probably want to store the produce so that national supply
can be managed in a sustainable manner. This might be a good
situation for the Government to get involved. They could facilitate
the building of storage facilities at community or farmer
organisation level.

Continuous research
Scientific research in to organic agriculture must be a priority. A
continuous innovation is needed in terms of new fertiliser
mixtures, new paddy varieties and pests and disease
management practices. I mentioned earlier that traditional rice
varieties carry medicinal properties and that will be lost once new
improved varieties starts integrating into the value chain.
However it will open up research opportunities.
I do not believe the organic paddy value chain is backed up by
enough socio-economic and market research. There are some
interesting questions that need answers:
(1) Who are the main consumers?
(2) What is the profile of these consumers?
(3) What is the opportunity cost of accessing the necessary
inputs?
(4) What role would the extension services play?
(5) What are the traceability mechanisms in place?
Policymakers need to think of two main aspects in promoting
sustainable agriculture in Sri Lanka. These aspects represent the
farmer side/the production side and the consumer side. These
are:
(1) If organic farming is that good in terms of environment, health,
social and economic, why wont farmers adopt this easily?
(2) If organic rice is bringing in many benefits in terms of health
and environment, why is the consumer base still low?

These questions are justified by research. Answers to these two

aspects will help the policymakers to design the national
programs better.
(Dr. Chatura Rodrigo is an agriculture and environment
economist. The author can be reached at
chatura_rodrigo@yahoo.com and 94 77 986 7007.)
Posted by Thavam