Impact of Sudden Ban on Chemical Fertilizers in Ratnapura Tea Production

Impact of Sudden Banning of Chemical Fertilizers and other Agrochemicals on Smallholders Tea Production in Ratnapura District PHN Kumari, SHP Malkanthi Department of Agribusiness Management, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka 1

Content Content Introduction Objectives Material and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion and Recommendations References 2

Introduction Introduction In Sri Lanka, tea is an important agricultural commodity in terms of employment generation as well as export earnings. The tea plant, scientifically known as Camellia sinensis , is considered as endemic to India. Tea cultivation was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1867 during the colonial period by James Taylor. Tea is one of the major commercial crops in Sri Lanka, and since then, tea has been popular all over the world as Ceylon Tea (Mohamed, 2006). The smallholders are the largest contributors for Sri Lanka s tea production. In Sri Lanka, smallholder tea producers grow 70% of the country s tea and bring in significant export earnings (Bathige, 2022). At present, 60% of the total tea land is cultivated by smallholders in the country. Tea lands less than 10 acres are considered Tea Small Holdings as stated in the Tea Control Act (1958). 3

Introduction Cont.. Introduction Cont.. In April 2021, government announced a banning of importation of agrochemicals. The move was meant to save Sri Lanka around $300 $400 million in foreign exchange, which the country spends each year importing agrochemicals (Monlar, 2021). The government also justified that the right of Sri Lankans to a non-toxic diet was guaranteed with this policy. This makes farmers to face an unexpected situation regarding their yield and cost of production. Under this situation it is important to find out the problems faced by the small-scale tea farmers due to banning of agrochemicals in Ratnapura district. 4

Objectives Objectives Broad Objective Determine the impact of the sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals on smallholders' tea production in Ratnapura district. Specific Objectives To examine the impact of sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals on cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals and cost of production. To assess the impact of the sudden chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals banning on the yield of tea smallholders. To determine smallholders level of awareness about the impacts of the use of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals. To identify the smallholders attitude on the sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals and moving towards organic farming. To find out possible alternatives and their practicability for chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals currently used by tea smallholders. 5

Material and Methods Material and Methods Study location: Ratnapura District 3 DS divisions were used. Balangoda DS division Imbulpe DS division Opernayaka DS division Research Approach: Both Quantitative and Qualitative Research Strategy: Survey Strategy Sampling Technique: Simple Random Sampling Sample Size: 120 smallholder tea farmers Balangoda DS division 40 Active supplier base in Sesami Senhora Tea Company Imbulpe DS division 40 Tea Smallholders in Ratnapura District Opernayaka DS division 40 6

Material and Methods Cont.. Material and Methods Cont.. Data Collection Method: Primary Data: Field Survey, Face to face interviews, Telephone conversations Secondary Data: Tea factory records (Sesami Senhora Tea Company (Pvt) Ltd.) Research literature, Articles, Journals, and Websites (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, Sri Lanka Tea Board, Department of Census and Statistics, Central Bank of Sri Lanka) Data Analysis Technique: Quantitative data: Descriptive statistics, Paired t test Qualitative data: Graphical illustrations Data Analysis Tool: Microsoft Excel (2013) and SPSS 21 Statistical Software Packages 7

Research hypothesis: Research hypothesis: There were three sets of hypotheses. Comparison of cost of chemical fertilizers (Rs/Acre) and other agrochemicals before and after banning. H0: There is no significant difference in cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals before and after the banning. H1: There is a significant difference in cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals before and after the banning. Comparison of cost of production (Rs/Kg) before and after the banning. H0: There is no significant difference in cost of production before and after the banning. H1: There is a significant difference in cost of production before and after the banning. Comparison of tea production (Kg/Month) before and after the banning. H0: There is no significant difference in tea production (yield) before and after the banning. H1: There is a significant difference in tea production (yield) before and after the banning. 8

Results and Discussion Results and Discussion Socio-economic factors of the smallholders 2. Age Distribution of the Respondents 3. Marital Status of the Respondents 1. Gender Distribution of the Respondents 90% 85% 35% 32% 80% 30% 28% 27% 70% 25% 60% Percentage 20% 35% Percentage 50% 15% 40% 65% 30% 10% 7% 6% 20% 13% 5% 10% 2% 0% 0% 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >65 Male Female Married Unmarried Widowed Age Marital status 9

Socio-economic factors of the smallholders 5. Land Extent of the Respondents 4. Education level of the Respondents 6. Income of the Respondents 70% 70% 59% 60% 60% 60% 53% 51% 60% 50% 50% 50% Percentage 40% Percentage 40% 31% 40% 29% Percentage 30% 29% 30% 28% 30% 20% 15% 20% 20% 9% 10% 11% 3% 9% 3% 10% 10% 3% 0% 4% 3% <25,000 25,000-50,000 50,000-75,000 >75,000 0% 0% < - -1 >1 Income Primary Junior secondary Senior secondary Diploma Graduate Total Monthly Income Total Tea Income Acres Education Level 10

Objective 01:To examine impact of sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals on cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals and cost of production Objective 02:To assess the impact of sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals on yield of smallholder tea farmers Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Cost of Agrochemicals Before Banning (Rs/Acre) 7922.89 120 3968.77 362.30 Pair 1 Cost of Agrochemicals After Banning (Rs/Acre) 11557.91 120 5265.94 480.71 Cost of Production Before Banning (Rs/Kg) 105.21 120 49.22 4.49 Pair 2 Cost of Production After Banning (Rs/Kg) 175.35 120 82.03 7.49 Yield Before Banning (Kg/Month) 218.35 120 105.88 9.67 Pair 3 Yield After Banning (Kg/Month) 133.71 120 63.60 5.80 Output shows the summary results of descriptive statistics from three pairs of before and after the banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals. Pair 1, represents the cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals before and after the banning. Pair 2, represents the cost of production before and after the banning. Pair 3, represents the tea yield(production) before and after the banning. 11

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Sig. 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower t df Std. Std. Error Mean (2-tailed) Mean Deviation Upper Pair 1Cost of Agrochemicals Before Banning Cost of Agrochemicals After Banning -3635.02 1561.22 142.52 -3917.23 -3352.82 -9.15 119 .000 Pair 2Cost of Production Before Banning - Cost of Production After Banning Pair 3Yield Before Banning Yield After Banning 119 .000 -70.14 32.81 2.99 -76.07 -64.21 -1.26 84.65 44.95 4.10 76.52 92.77 2.03 119 .000 For pair 1; the t statistic (t) is -9.15, and p-value (0.000) < 0.01 For pair 2; the t statistic (t) is -1.26, and p-value (0.000) < 0.01 For pair 3; the t statistic (t) is 2.03, and p-value (0.000) < 0.01 Therefore we may reject the null hypothesis (of no difference between the means of the two groups) for three pairs with 99% confidence. It is known that the p-value is 0.000<0.01 In pair 1, mean difference is -3635.02 (Negative value). So, it indicates that there are significant increases in cost of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals after banning. In pair 2, mean difference is -70.14 (Negative value). So, it indicates that there are significant increases in cost of production after banning of chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals. In pair 3, mean difference is 84.65 (Positive value). So, it indicates that there are significant decrease in tea yield (production) after banning of chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals. 12

Objective 03: To determine smallholders level of awareness about the impact of use of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals. Smallholders level of awareness about the impact of use of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals Serial No Level of awareness about the impact of use of chemical fertilizer 1 Chemical fertilizers help to enhance the yield. Chemical fertilizers are badly affected for health and it causes many diseases 3 Chemical fertilizers are badly affected for environment. Std. Statement Mean Remark Deviation 4.81 .395 Strongly Agree 2 3.73 .501 Agree 3.87 .448 Agree 4 Mainly chemical fertilizers are import from other c ountries. 3.91 .367 Agree Level of awareness about the impact of use of other agrochemicals 5 Other agrochemicals help to enhance the yield Other agrochemicals are badly affected for health and it causes many diseases 7 Other agrochemicals are badly affected for the environment 4.71 .456 Strongly Agree 6 3.73 .530 Agree 3.84 .467 Agree 8 Mainly other agrochemicals are imported from other countries 3.96 .474 Agree 13

Sources of getting knowledge: 90% 80% 80% Responses Percent of cases (%) Factor 70% Percent (%) N 60% Percentage Tea instructor/inspector Agrochemical retail shops Mass media (Newspapers, Radio, Internet) Tea factory Other farmers 96 50 16 33 25 45 23 7 15 11 80 42 13 28 21 50% 42% Source 40% 28% 30% 21% 220 100 20% Total 184 13% 10% 0% Tea inspector Agrochemical Mass media Tea Factory Other farmers Retail shops Source 14

Objective 04: To identify the smallholders attitude on sudden banning of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals and moving towards the organic farming. Smallholders attitude on sudden banning of chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals: Serial No Std. Statement Mean Remark Deviation smallholders attitude on sudden banning of chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals. Aware about the chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals importation banning 1 4.81 .395 Strongly Agree 2 Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning is a good act 3.73 .501 Agree Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning will help to control the diseases cause for human 3 3.87 .448 Agree Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning helps to move towards the organic farming Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning helps to protect the environment Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning causes to reduce the yield Chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals import banning cause farmers to move away from farming. 4 3.91 .367 Agree 5 4.71 .456 Strongly Agree 6 3.73 .530 Agree 7 3.84 .467 Agree 15

Smallholders attitude on moving towards the organic farming: Serial No Std. Statement Mean Remark Deviation smallholders attitude on move from inorganic farming to organic farming. 1 Organic farming is a successful method for tea cultivation 1.41 .804 Strongly Disagree 2 Prefer to cultivate 100% Organically 1.28 .505 Strongly Disagree 3 Prefer to cultivate 50% Organically and 50% inorganically 1.26 .476 Strongly Disagree 4 Prefer to cultivate 25% Organically and 75% inorganically 3.60 1.133 Agree 5 Prefer to cultivate 75% Organically and 25% inorganically 1.31 .719 Strongly Disagree 6 Not prefer to use Organic farming 4.27 1.137 Agree 16

Objective 05: To finding out possible alternatives and their practicability for chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals currently used by the smallholder tea farmers. 1.Compost Alternatives for chemical fertilizers Potentials Constraints Convenient to prepare Required large quantities per acre 50% 45% 45% Convenient to purchase Lack of facilities to prepare large quantities 40% 35% Can prepare utilizing their own house hold waste Require large investment and more labor 30% Percentage 25% Low price compared to the chemical fertilizer Runoff the compost away from tea land with rain water 20% 16% 16% 15% 12% 2.Cow Manure 10% 6% 5% Potentials Constraints 5% 0% Convenient to find Required large quantities per acre Compost Cow Manure Poultry Manure Organic liquid fertilizer Green leaf Manure Using chemical fertilizers in small quantities with compost Low cost Difficult to find in large quantities Possibility of nutrient loss through runoff Alternative Method Difficulties while handling and storing 17

3.Poultry Manure 5.Green leaf manure (Glyricidia leaves) Potentials Constraints Potentials Constraints Convenient to find Required large quantities per acre Can use shade trees such as glyricidia leaves in own tea land Required large quantities per acre Low cost Difficult to find in large quantities Avoid environmental pollution Possibility of nutrient loss through runoff Weeds also control acting as a mulch Lack of facilities to prepare large quantities Difficulties while handling and storing Low cost Difficult to find in large quantities Fly attraction and breeding Environmental friendly convenient method Feral swine like animals attracts to the field and harm to tea bushes due to bad odor 6.Using chemical fertilizers in small quantities mixing with compost 4.Organic Liquid Fertilizer Potentials Constraints Potentials Constraints Convenient to prepare Required large quantities per acre Low cost Time take to prepare compost No need large quantity of compost Require knowledge to use suitable ratios are some constraints in this method Household kitchen waste can use as raw materials Difficult to prepare in large quantities and take more time to prepare Effective and efficient than other methods Possibility to prepare utilizing their own house hold waste Fly and feral swine like pest attract is high due to bad odor 18

1.Remove decayed, harmed plant parts and burn or burry Alternatives for pesticides Potentials Constraints Convenient to remove pest in the field Pests may not be prevented from returning to premises 80% 68% 70% No need technical knowledge 60% 50% Easily remove while pruning Percentage 40% 32% 30% 2.Remove of eggs and destroying nests by hand 20% Potentials Constraints 10% Convenient to remove pest in the field Pests may not be prevented from returning to premises 0% Remove decayed, harmed plant parts and burn Remove eggs and destroying nests by hand No need more technical knowledge Alternative method Easily remove while pruning 19

2.Remove only harmful weeds Potentials Constraints Alternatives for weedicides Convenient method Low efficiency 56% 60% Can remove weeds without harming to the environment Not practicable in large area of lands 50% 40% 32% Percentage High labor requirement 30% 20% 12% 3.Manual weeding (Using wisikaththa) 10% 0% Potentials Constraints Use of a brush cutter machine Remove only harmful weeds Manual weeding (using wisikaththa) Convenient method Recovery of growth of weeds are fast Alternative Method No need of technical knowledge Woody and deep rooted perennial weeds are resistant 1.Using a brush cutter machine Potentials Constraints Light weight Cost is high No harm to the environment Lack of family labor and unavailability of free time Convenient to use Required a technical knowledge High cost and dearth of hired labor High efficiency Should concern more about the safety Strenuous method 20

Conclusion Conclusion Paired t-test results of the study show the cost spent on chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals after the banning is higher, cost of production after the banning is higher and tea production reduce significantly than before the banning. Most of smallholders are getting information about agrochemicals from the tea instructor of the division. It can be concluded that still there is a good public tea extension service in this area. Since it is a formal source, farmers can get correct information. But getting information from informal sources like agro chemical sellers, media are not so good. When farmers attitude are concerned, majority has a very good understanding about the impact of use of agrochemicals and the sudden banning of them. So farmers wish to gradually move towards the organic farming. But majority not appreciate the sudden decision taken by the government. According to the farmers, integrated method of including both organic and inorganic methods is more efficient than using only organic methods or only inorganic methods. The farmers are spending much on agrochemicals, leaving the cost of production of tea goes high due to increase in the prices of agrochemicals available in Sri Lankan market. 21

Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations can be suggested for three parties as farmers, researchers and the government. Farmers need to use cultural practices and Integrated management practices as much as possible instead of agrochemicals. Proper training can be provided to farmers through farming trainers and tea instructors. Researchers including tea inspectors need to find out better alternatives for chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals soon and check the feasibility at farmers level. Government should motivate farmers to use organic fertilizer, researchers to carry out research and introduce an active and cost effective alternatives or integrated farming methods for the tea farmers for the sake of tea cultivation in future. Government should conduct a research with relevant professionals in the industry and concern more about the impact of it before make a policy. 22

References References Bathige, N. (2022). Food Security and Dietary Diversity among Conventional and Organic Tea-Smallholders in Central and Southern Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=geography_honors CBSL. https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/publications/annual_report/2019/en/6_Chapter_02.pdf (2019). National Output, Expenditure and Income. Central Bank of Sri Lanka. Retrieved from Dairy FT. (2021, July 9). Dairy FT. Retrieved from Tea smallholders estimate 30% drop in yield by end 2021, 50% by March 2022: https://www.ft.lk/business/Tea-smallholders-estimate-30-drop-in-yield-by-end-2021-50-by-March-2022/34-720219 Mohamed, M. Z. (2006). Current status and future research. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Sri Lanka. MONLAR, G. a. (2021, November). Lessons from Sri Lanka s agrochemical ban fiasco. Retrieved from La via campesina: https://viacampesina.org/en/lessons-from-sri-lankas-agrochemical-ban-fiasco/ Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. . (2009). Multivate data analysis. In J. B. Hair, Multivate data analysis. Chollerstrasse: Prentice Hall. Hicks, A. (2001). Review of Global Tea Production and the Impact on Industry of the Asian Economic Situation. Hicks, A. (2009). Current Status and Future Development of Global Tea. Retrieved from https://www.lexariaenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Global-Tea-Consumption.pdf Hilal, M. I. (2019). Sri Lanka s Tea Economy: Issues and Strategies. Journal of Politics and Law. Retrieved from : https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v13n1p1 Isra Mahmood, S. R. Imadi, A. Gul. (2016). Effects of Pesticides on Environment. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3- 319-27455-3_13 Mahindapala, K. G. (2012). Contributory Factors of Cost of Production in Tea Smallholding Sector of Matara District. 23

Thank You Thank You 24