Sacrificing food security for self-sufficiency

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

The fallacy of a society that thrives on the myth of “self-sufficiency” after the colossal failure during the mid-70s that left nearly the entire population sans the ruling elite’s belly full is making the rounds again. The very definition of the term “self-sufficiency” has different meanings. One school of thought is going back in time to an era where Sri Lanka never existed on the international map with absolutely zero trade. In this instance, one had no choice as you live off of what you grow. Then there are the alternative arguments – the one that argues that one needs self-sufficiency to ensure food security; to be self-sufficient in food but import fuel, coal, medicine, raw materials, and other “essentials” as prescribed by the state. There are others who believe our trade deficit is beyond our means and we need to be self-sufficient to the extent of our export capacity. Out of all the arguments, the one on food security is the most popular. Hence, let›s take a look at data and definitions on food security and evaluate whether Sri Lanka can truly be “self-sufficient”.

What does food security mean?

The popular belief of “food security” is to have enough food for our consumption during a crisis. The present global COVID-19 crisis we are grappling with is a prime example. Another common myth on food security is having sufficient food stocks to last six months and the ability to produce the required calorie intake within the country’s territorial borders. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Food Summit have defined food security as follows: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”

Despite popular belief, to achieve food security, the country in concern need not produce the food it needs within its borders. The key is to produce the required food at scale and desired quality economically. Otherwise, we will waste our precious and limited resources. For example, take Singapore which has a land area of just 725.7 km2, compared with Sri Lanka’s 65,610 km². Singapore has topped the global food security index for the second year running, despite lacking commercial agriculture. This is because Singapore has integrated fully into the global food supply chain and constructed adequate storage to feed its citizens during external shocks. This is truly remarkable as Singaporeans can consume food that is, as defined by the FAO, safe, sufficient, and to the preference of the consumer. In comparison, Sri Lanka is ranked 66th in the same index. How can we ensure fellow Sri Lankans have access to food physically and economically at all times? According to the FAO definition, it is evident through the COVID-19 crisis that although we have food physically, our food security as a country has been hit by not having physical access to this food due to delivery concerns, people losing both economic and physical access to food due to the interruption of their daily wages, and the absence of food preferences. The failed socialism experiment adopted by the Bandaranaike Government failed to achieve any of the above. Food was inadequate, to say the least; choice was a dream and quality was never present. If a citizen was apprehended with anything more than that was rationed, it was deemed a heinous crime and he or she was promptly jailed. Flour was infested with bugs and rice with stones, and apparel was perfumed with the stench of kerosene and the risk of setting on fire those who were careless near the wood-fired kitchen stove. We had the longest queues in the world for the poorest quality of bread, and that too for only one loaf irrespective of the size of your family. In summary, for the urban community (where the majority had cash to buy food), food security was challenged by the absence of physical access and preferences, while the rural and estate communities’ food security was challenged by the absence of income and preferences as they consumed whatever that was available in their gardens or that grew in the wild. So it is obvious that food security is not something we can attain just by trying to be self-sufficient as there are so many other components to it such as access, affordability, safety, preferences, and nutritional value. According to FAO, the average daily per capita energy requirement per person is 1,680 kcal and Sri Lanka on average is at about 500 kcal above the limit, but according to census and statistics data, the energy intake in the poor segment across Sri Lanka is below world standards. So if we are serious about food security in the long run, we need to ensure our people can afford safe and nutritional food, maintain access, and ensure choice rather than living in the fallacy of self-sufficiency. To achieve this, we need to create secure access to the global food supply chains so that our people can afford the diverse range of food required to meet their energy intake (balanced diet). Then the next question one may have is whether this means that we are going to import all our food and whether we have enough foreign exchange to import all that we require.

Low agriculture productivity

To answer both aforementioned questions, we need to check why the productivity in our agriculture (sector) is low. The technology not reaching our paddy fields is the common excuse that has been given over the years. But have we thought about the reason why technology hasn’t reached the paddy fields? Out of 6.5 million hectares of land in Sri Lanka, 5.4 million hectares are owned by the government. As a percentage, private lands are just 18% of Sri Lanka’s total land extent. Farmers are required to take a permit from the government office if they are to cultivate a higher-yielding paddy. Access to a bank loan is very limited for most paddy lands as farmers are not given the title to the land they cultivate. No construction can be done on paddy land as it’s forbidden by law. Under the current regulatory regime, no investor would invest in a greenhouse farm or high-tech farm. In addition to the above, most of the paddy lands are fragmented, so the opportunity to scale up for a big operation is very limited, keeping costs of production high. This means that even if we were to go back to self-sufficiency and cultivate in our backyards, we have just a fifth of our entire land to cultivate, build houses, and do all other industrial work. This also means that we have about 25% of our labour force engaged in farming, but contributing only 7-8% to our GDP, which leaves most of our land unproductive.

Importing food and the trade deficit

Extreme self-sufficiency is not at all an option regardless of how resourceful we are, as it is obvious that we can’t produce all that we need – for example, fuel and machinery. The only way to keep our trade deficit narrow and convert it to a surplus is to develop our exports. Exports and imports are two sides of the same coin. We import products we cannot produce or products for which we do not have a competitive advantage. We export commodities and services where we have a competitive advantage. Following is an extract from FAO which summarises why food security can only be achieved by global collaboration: “Global food trade has to be kept going. One of every five calories people eat has crossed at least one international border, up more than 50% from 40 years ago.” Therefore, our inability and traditionally lethargic approach to developing our exports should not be a trade compromise for the real and meaningful food security of our people.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.