Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sustainability: How That Translates To Agriculture
Sustainability: How That Translates To Agriculture
Sustainability: How That Translates To Agriculture
agriculture
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.
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.
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?