No fertilizer, no food? Sri Lanka’s farmers say foreign aid is repeating Rajapaksa’s mistakes.

By: Noah Burch, Chief Operating Officer & Executive Director

In the verdant highlands of Sri Lanka, Kumara Jayawardena surveys his tea plantation with a troubled expression. Two years after the country’s economic collapse—precipitated in part by a hastily implemented organic farming mandate—international donors are once again promoting organic agriculture initiatives across the developing world.

“We’ve barely recovered from the last disaster,” says Jayawardena, whose yields plummeted by nearly 40% during Sri Lanka’s forced organic transition in 2021. “Now foreign experts arrive with similar ideas and funding packages, but they don’t understand our reality.”

The Dual Crisis: Hunger and Environmental Degradation

As global food insecurity reaches alarming levels, with the UN reporting over 800 million people facing hunger in 2024, a contentious debate has emerged within international development circles. Should agricultural aid prioritize immediate productivity or long-term sustainability? Can these objectives coexist, or must there be trade-offs?

Several major development agencies have significantly increased funding for organic transition programs across Africa and Asia, citing urgent environmental concerns including soil degradation, water pollution, and climate impacts from conventional farming. The European Union alone has committed €3.2 billion to support “agroecological transitions” in developing nations over the next five years.

“Chemical-intensive agriculture is destroying the very foundation of food security,” argues Dr. Helena Nordström of the Stockholm Environmental Institute. “Continued dependence on synthetic inputs is not just environmentally unsustainable—it’s economically unsustainable for smallholder farmers trapped in debt cycles.”

Learning from Sri Lanka’s Mistakes

Critics, however, point to Sri Lanka’s 2021 organic experiment as a cautionary tale. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s overnight ban on chemical fertilizers and pesticides contributed to agricultural collapse and exacerbated a devastating economic crisis that ultimately forced him from power.

“The lesson isn’t that organic farming is inherently flawed, but that transitions require careful planning, adequate timeframes, and substantial support,” explains Dr. Rajiv Chandrasekhar, an agricultural economist at the University of Colombo. “Sri Lanka’s failure stemmed from implementation, not the concept itself.”

Agricultural experts generally agree that transitional periods between conventional and organic systems typically result in temporary yield reductions before stabilizing—a dip that vulnerable populations can ill afford without robust safety nets.

Tailored Solutions, Not Universal Prescriptions

In Kenya’s Rift Valley, a more nuanced approach is showing promise. The Sustainable Agriculture Network initiative combines targeted organic methods with limited conventional inputs, gradually reducing chemical dependence while maintaining productivity.

“We rejected the all-or-nothing approach,” says program director Grace Mwangi. “Our farmers use organic practices where they work best, while carefully managing synthetic inputs elsewhere. It’s pragmatic, not ideological.”

This hybrid model has maintained yields while reducing input costs by 30%, according to preliminary data from participating farms.

The Sovereignty Question

Perhaps most contentious is the question of agricultural sovereignty. When foreign donors attach conditions to aid—whether promoting organic methods or requiring purchases of proprietary seeds and chemicals—do recipients retain meaningful control over their food systems?

“The problem isn’t organic versus conventional,” argues Dr. Miguel Altieri, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley. “It’s who decides. Agricultural transitions must be locally determined, not imposed by external actors with limited understanding of regional conditions.”

Many farmers across the Global South express frustration that their voices remain marginalized in these debates. “Everyone claims to speak for us,” says Jayawardena. “The organic advocates, the chemical companies, the aid agencies—but few actually listen to farmers.”

The Path Forward

As climate change intensifies and food insecurity persists, the stakes of these agricultural policy decisions grow ever higher. A growing consensus suggests that neither pure organic nor industrial conventional approaches alone will secure sustainable food systems.

“We need an evidence-based combination of approaches,” argues Dr. Chandrasekhar. “This means investing in research that examines what works in specific contexts rather than pushing universal solutions.”

For farmers like Jayawardena, the path forward lies in greater autonomy and support for locally-appropriate transitions. “We know our land best,” he says. “Give us information, resources, and time—then let us determine how to feed our communities while protecting our environment.”

As development agencies refine their agricultural support strategies, the voices of those who actually work the land may prove the most valuable guide in navigating this complex terrain.