"At the root of this economic catastrophe is a bizarre overnight flip by Rajapaksa’s government on 29 April to ban the import of chemical fertilisers and any other agrochemicals to make the Indian Ocean nation the first in the world to practice organic-only agriculture. The result: prices of daily food items like sugar, rice and onions have soared over twice, with sugar even touching record Rs 200/kg"
Fortunately, Western environmentalists won't be affected - they can continue arguing about the need for a transition to organic-only farming while sipping their organic kombucha made by what is left of Sri-Lankan tea industry - which they can afford thanks to welfare created in their countries by cheap food from modern agriculture 🤷
Unfortunately, majority of that farming-related activism does indeed originate from European and US "environmental" NGOs. They apply heavy pressure and misinformation on African or Asian governments, for example to prevent them from using genetically engineered crops that would improve health and well-being of farmers there.
It was specifically Greenpeace that was fiercely battling Golden Rice in the situation where thousands of people suffer from vitamin A deficit.
It was also Greenpeace that blackmailed African governments to reject US donations of food during 2001-2002 famine in Zambia only because they contained GM soya bean.
This is excerpt from "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand, one of leading US environmentalists, who is also very critical over anti-scientific stance of Greenpeace and FoE.
Regarding Sri-Lanka, the ban on inorganic fertilizers and pesticides did not originate in the local government - it was result of long-term lobbying by environmental NGOs, most notably Vandana Shiva who was actually hired adviser of the government, and publicly celebrated the introduction of the ban:
https://navdanyainternational.org/sri-lankas-shift-towards-organic-farming/
@kravietz from the link you shared: "albeit the remark that this huge step forward needs to be implemented according to a plan which ensures a smooth transition for farmers and the local economy"
I really can't tell (knowing next to nothing about Sri-Lankan politics and the context of these decisions). It may well be an idiotic misstep.
You missed these paragraphs:
> ban importing chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and to replace them with organic inputs and methods. This decision was supported by many, including the Global Alliance for Organic Districts
> According to her, Sri Lanka’s shift to become a 100% organic country means turning to an economy of permanence and prosperity for all beings
> Dr. Shiva said: “The reason I am glad about the approach of the Sri Lankan government
@openrisk The smooth transition comes apparently from one of the three speakers mentioned in the last paragraph. You don't really see them pulling their teeth over this topic, though.
This statement by Shiva is however the most idiotic:
> Dr. Shiva said: “The reason I am glad about the approach of the Sri Lankan government is because it connects three things, namely stopping dependency on imports
What really happened:
My point about "tea sipping" being, they treat developed countries as an experimental field for their poorly designed and often utopian proposals, using their disadvantaged economic position and weak democratic institutions. But for the people on the ground it's not about abstract ideas or experiments, it's life-or-death situation.
Do you think an overnight ban on "inorganic" fertilizers and pesticides could be passed in any EU country?
That's why they've gone to Sri-Lanka.
I'm mainly arguing that an approach, where someone makes an arbitrary decision how farming should be done based on pseudo-scientific and sectarian criteria is not sustainable from both environmental and socio-economic point of view.
And the most widespread definition of #organic, where say copper sulphate is "organic" but say glyphosate is "inorganic", is indeed sectarian and pseudo-scientific.
Just to be clear, I don't mind permaculture and other sound farming practices.
thats entirely reasonable, my concern is that any real missteps will be used not only in good faith (e.g. to ground hyperactive do-gooders) but to forestall any and all action that may hurt vested interests
food production (especially cash crops like tea) is big business where the farmers of poor countries are just the lowest rung.
> forestall any and all action
That's a valid concern, but just as overnight 100% ban on fertilizers wouldn't have a chance in the EU, in the same way a 100% unregulated fertilizer market also won't pass.
It's not because of some extraordinary wisdom of EU officers, but thanks to the extremely comprehensive consensus-based consultation policies.
Sri-Lanka didn't have that - their scientific and farming community has been warning long before the ban about it's impact.
sustainability will also catalyse social change (e.g., you can't dump waste in remote places forever, eventually its shows up in your shores, so you need to start caring about those places too)
the EU's bag of tricks is actually an interesting precursor: just replace the need to live and prosper within the continent, with the need to live and prosper within the planet
The result of the sectarian approach is that the "certified organic" farming actually uses *more* land, has more impact on diversity, results in higher CO2 emissions... and to add to that is way much more expensive for consumers.
But in the West it's kind of the whole point of it - we buy "more natural food" than the ordinary mortals because we can afford it. "Hand-picked", "artisan", "home-made", "organic" is all part of the same marketing targeted at rich people.
@kravietz lets discredit them effeminate tea sipping western environmentalists by blaming them for any and all government actions towards sustainability (including the timing of measures and precise apportioning of pain)