food waste in sri lanka research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 October 2021

Climate change and food security in Sri Lanka: towards food sovereignty

• Mahinda Senevi Gunaratne   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-900X 1 ,
• R. B. Radin Firdaus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7022-0576 1 &
• Shamila Indika Rathnasooriya 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  229 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

30k Accesses

18 Citations

34 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Environmental studies
• Social policy

This study explored food security and climate change issues and assessed how food sovereignty contributes to addressing the climate change impacts on entire food systems. The study aimed to contextualise food security, climate change, and food sovereignty within Sri Lanka’s current development discourse by bringing global learning, experience, and scholarship together. While this paper focused on many of the most pressing issues in this regard, it also highlighted potential paths towards food sovereignty in the context of policy reforms. This study used a narrative review that relied on the extant literature to understand the underlying concepts and issues relating to climate change, food security and food sovereignty. Additionally, eight in-depth interviews were conducted to obtain experts’ views on Sri Lanka’s issues relating to the thematic areas of this study and to find ways forward. The key findings from the literature review suggest that climate change has adverse impacts on global food security, escalating poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, which adversely affect developing nations and the poor and marginalised communities disproportionately. This study argues that promoting food sovereignty could be the key to alleviating such impacts. Food sovereignty has received much attention as an alternative development path in international forums and policy dialogues while it already applies in development practice. Since the island nation has been facing many challenges in food security, poverty, climate change, and persistence of development disparities, scaling up to food sovereignty in Sri Lanka requires significant policy reforms and structural changes in governance, administrative systems, and wider society.

Similar content being viewed by others

A new understanding and evaluation of food sustainability in six different food systems in Kenya and Bolivia

Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens

Deep histories of food systems in eastern Africa and current patterns of food insecurity

Introduction.

Agriculture predominantly depends on the climate and natural resources; thus, climate change decisively impacts agriculture. The FAO ( 2016 ) has noted that climate change has prolonged impacts on agriculture and food security. A 60% increase in global food demand will occur by 2050 against 2006 levels due to population increases and changes to food patterns, while climate change will continually impact global food systems. Although agriculture has an immense capacity to absorb carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), agriculture, forestry, and other land-use practices contributed to 24% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 (Tubiello et al., 2014 ). In 2015, entire food systems—including agriculture, changing land-use patterns in agriculture, food processing, supply chains and consumption—contributed to 34% of global GHG emissions (Crippa et al., 2021 ). In his special report to the UNHRC in 2014, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food highlighted the drawbacks of current food security processes, their significant risks and GHG emissions. Thus, he proposed agroecological techniques and small-scale farming to promote food system sustainability, improve climate change resilience and enhance food sovereignty (Sage, 2014 ; De Schutter, 2014 ). These techniques include intercropping, agroforestry, crop and livestock diversification to promote natural nutrient recycling, natural farming practices and the minimisation of external inputs (De Schutter, 2014 ). Moreover, the ten elements of agroecology (i.e., diversity, co-creation and sharing of knowledge, synergies, efficiency, recycling, resilience, human and social values, culture and food traditions, responsible governance, and a circular and solidarity economy) put agroecology into practice (FAO, 2018 ).

Climate shocks and changes in weather patterns affect agriculture to a greater extent in Sri Lanka than in other countries. The country experienced its worst drought conditions in late 2016, while a 40% decline in paddy production occurred in early 2017. Afterwards, heavy rains in May 2017 further deteriorated food crop production. Moreover, 229,560 households were food insecure, with rain-fed farmers and agricultural labourers being the most affected (Coslet et al., 2017 ). In Sri Lanka, heavy rains, landslides and floods in May 2017 resulted in 246 deaths and the displacement of over 600,000 people, which ranked the island as the second-worst hit in the 2017 Global Climate Risk Index (Eckstein et al., 2019 ). Heat stress due to temperature increases and extreme rainfall anomalies are the two general climate change trends that adversely affect food security in Sri Lanka (Sathischandra et al., 2014 ). The severity of weather-related disasters in Sri Lanka is extreme since flash floods and prolonged droughts are much higher and more frequent than in other countries (IMF, 2018 ). In Sri Lanka, average annual losses from natural disasters between 1998 and 2012 were US$ 380 million, with losses due to flooding and cyclones being the most significant contributors (Siriwardana et al., 2018 ). Floods, landslides, droughts and storms accounted for 74% of the total disaster occurrences during the 1990–2018 period (UNDRR, 2019 ). Studies have claimed that such high climate variances were due to both La Niña and El Niño extremes (Sumathipala, 2014 ; Hapuarachchi and Jayawardena, 2015; Jayawardene et al., 2015 ; Abeysekera et al., 2019 ). Moreover, Sri Lanka is vulnerable to climate change impacts such as upsurges in temperature, changes in rainfall patterns, seawater rise and extreme weather events (Mani et al., 2018 ). Conversely, Sri Lanka’s hidden climate hotspots are at high risk from climate change impacts and are located around agricultural areas, with the North, North Central, Western and North Western provinces being the most adversely affected (The World Bank, 2018 ).

Food security has four dimensions: food availability, accessibility, utilisation and stability (FAO, 2006 ). As per the definition, ‘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’ (World Food Summit, 1996 ; FAO, 2008 ). Figure 1 presents the four dimensions of food security in detail.

(As per its definition, food security has four dimensions ‘Availability, Accessibility, Utilisation and Stability’. Impediments in any of these dimensions would challenge food security at all levels, from person to global. Thus, Figure 1 demonstrates the interconnectedness of said four dimensions and details the definition of food security and each dimension).

In contrast, food sovereignty ‘is the right of people to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute, and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation…. It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food’ (Nyeleni, 2007a ). Accordingly, food sovereignty has six pillars (Nyeleni, 2007b ; La Via Campesina, 2018 ), which are presented in Fig. 2 .

(Food sovereignty is based on six pillars or approaches: Works with Nature, Focuses on food for people, Values food providers, Localises food systems, Puts control locally, and Builds knowledge and skills. Figure 2 here detailed these six pillars, thus, supports readers to grasp the food sovereignty concept quickly).

Globally, food sovereignty evolved as a solution to climate change impacts on food security, diminishing rights of local food producers and consumers, and increasing poverty, hunger and fragility of food systems (Wittman 2011 ; Chihambakwe et al., 2018 ). The obvious interdependence of climate change and agriculture establishes food security well in development discourse (Firdaus et al., 2018 ; Yadav et al., 2019 ; Tan et al., 2021 ). Despite food security having four dimensions, the focus has mainly been on food availability by increasing food production. As such, less focus has been given to food accessibility and utilisation (Capone et al., 2014 ; Stringer 2016 ; Firdaus et al., 2020 ). Moreover, the vast majority of people that depend on agriculture for their livelihood are adversely affected by hunger and malnutrition worldwide (FAO et al., 2018 ; Yadav et al., 2019 ). Food sovereignty aims to secure the right for people and countries to make independent decisions regarding their food systems without any external influences or deterrents (Levkoe et al., 2019 ; Patel, 2009 ; Wittman, 2011 ). This is vital since small-scale food producers represent 40–85% of food production, while 76% of the world’s poor lives in rural areas and depends on agriculture for their livelihood (FAO and IFAD, 2019 ; IFAD, 2014 ; United Nations, 2019 ).

We felt that authorities and policymakers in Sri Lanka may not adequately be informed of such global initiatives or are reluctant to shift from conventional agriculture to sustainable initiatives. For instance, Yatawara ( 2005 ) elaborated that ‘the agriculture sector has suffered from the absence of a clear and consistent agriculture strategy over the last decade’. Moreover, the draft Overarching Agricultural Policy of Sri Lanka prioritises conventional agriculture while promoting export-oriented agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture, 2019 ) instead of focusing on the country’s food security. Policies focused on food security should be a more significant concern in Sri Lanka, where over 80% of the population live in rural areas (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2019 ). Despite being the majority, rural communities have little influence over policymaking and lack sufficient knowledge regarding their right to food, land, water and other inputs, which could be demanded from the government (Foti and De Silva, 2010 ). Thus, it emphasises the significant impacts of climate change on food security, lives, livelihoods, and natural resources in Sri Lanka. Consequently, this study had the following aims: (1) Map the interrelation between climate change, food security and food systems; (2) Elaborate the ways that food sovereignty contributes to securing the rights of people and nature while also exploring agrifood activism and discourses on food security and food sovereignty; (3) Understand the extent to which these concepts are established in Sri Lankan development discourse while determining a way forward.

Methodology

This study applied a narrative literature review of carefully selected works published in academic journals, periodicals, books, policy documents and reputable agencies’ publications from 1996 to 2021. Only English-language works were included and reviewed. Based on our study objectives, we identified key search terms and databases to search for relevant articles. A total of 378 documents were identified through the initial database search process. Lists of papers were outputted from each search, and abstracts were read to assess their relevance. Using this method, 109 documents were identified and accessed. Each document was then read and analysed. This led to the identification of additional relevant references, and a further 71 relevant papers were identified and read. Reasons for removing documents during the screening and eligibility checking process included duplication, being published outside of the study period and not being relevant to the study focus. All of the papers considered in this review were retrieved through online databases such as Google Scholar, Elsevier, JSTOR, Springer, Taylor & Francis and Kopernio. Multiple search terms were used, including agriculture, agroecology, climate change, farmer movements, food security, food sovereignty, peasant movements, poverty, and sustainable development. The selected articles were assessed in two levels: (1) To grasp a more comprehensive global picture of climate change, food security and food sovereignty; (2) To assess the identified concepts and practices in the Sri Lankan context with the aim of applying them locally. Figure 3 presents an overview of the study process.

(This flow chart explains different stages of secondary data analysis, from defining study objectives to analysing the selected documents).

Additionally, we conducted in-depth interviews with social activists, the leaders of farmer organisations, agricultural practitioners, and experts currently involved in climate change, food security and food sovereignty. The eight participants who were involved in this study represent the purposive sample. Thus, the selected participants have unique information and comprehensive experience, facilitating these informants’ engagement (Valerio et al., 2016 ). The objectives of the in-depth interviews were to capture different stakeholders’ perspectives on several key concepts in this review, their importance and the changes required to make food security and food sovereignty a reality in Sri Lanka in the wake of climate change. The key concepts covered in interviews were food security, climate change, agroecology, sustainable development and food sovereignty. On average, the interviews lasted 45 min, and the questions were based on the informants’ expertise. Among the eight participants, five of them were male, and three were female. Their ages ranged from 35 to 65 years; they had 15 to 40 years of experience and were active in their professions. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol. The interview protocol was first developed in English and then translated to the Sinhalese Language as the participants are native Sinhalese. This study complies with ethical standards and guidelines of the institutional ethical committee on human experiments. Before the field data collection, a statement was presented to the participants detailing the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants and that the data will be used in scientific research and publications. With the prior consent of the participants, all the interviews were tape-recorded. The number of participants was limited to eight due to data saturation. The interview findings were restricted to the focus of this study (i.e., climate change, food security and food sovereignty) in the Sri Lankan context (Andrade, 2021 ).

Discussion of findings

This paper first reviews climate change and food security interconnectedness, focusing on poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. In this section, the paper focuses on climate change impacts on food security in Sri Lanka concerning recent climatic change and its impacts on food crop production. The following two sections assess the emergence and progression of food sovereignty in the global and Sri Lankan contexts. This section provides details on the emergence of food sovereignty, different approaches at the ground level, and international policy and decision-making platforms. Next, the study outlines various approaches to making food sovereignty a reality based on cases from different countries worldwide. The study concludes with concluding remarks that provide some policy and structural interventions to ensure food security and food sovereignty in Sri Lanka.

Climate change and food security: the reality in Sri Lanka

Although Sri Lanka is an agriculture-based country, contributions to national gross domestic product (GDP) from the agricultural sector declined sharply from 33.53% in 1974 to 7.24% in 2019, which is even lower than the global average 10.46%. However, the agricultural land area increased from 23,420 km 2 in 1991 to 27,400 km 2 in 2016. Notably, the agricultural sector’s employment percentage declined from 42.84 to 27.1% during the same period (The Global Economy.com, 2020 ). Sri Lanka produces approximately 80% of its food requirements locally, while wheat, sugar, fish and milk products account for 65% of total food imports (World Food Programme, 2017 ). Rice is nearly self-sufficient, while over 75% of the other food crops are produced locally. However, climatic changes challenge local food production and food security in Sri Lanka. In 2019, the country ranked 66th out of 113 countries in the Global Food Security Index 2019, with an overall score of 60.8%—a 1.2% improvement from 2018 (The Economist Intellgence Unit, 2019 ).

Sri Lanka has been experiencing drastic changes in rainfall, rain patterns, droughts and temperature, which poses challenges for agricultural productivity, livelihoods and food security (Coslet et al., 2017 ; Eckstein et al., 2019 ; Marambe et al., 2015 ). According to Ratnasiri et al. ( 2019 ), the increase in temperature adversely impacts rice production more than the rainfall variance under different climate change scenarios for Sri Lanka. Another study in Sri Lanka indicated that an increase in rainfall is beneficial across the country, yet temperature increases will adversely affect dry zone agriculture (Seo et al., 2005 ). Studies on Sri Lankan home gardens highlighted their benefits in food security, providing ecosystem services and being cost-effective and pro-poor (Landreth and Saito, 2014 ; Yapa, 2018 ; Mattsson et al., 2018 ). Moreover, home gardens are considered climate-resilient since they depend on strategies that maintain diversity (Weerahewa et al., 2012 ). Some studies stressed the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, fisheries and livestock, thus underscoring the execution of adaptation strategies (Esham et al., 2018 ; Marambe et al., 2015 ). However, Menike and Keeragalaarachchi ( 2016 ) found that adaptation practices are mainly based on socio-economic, environmental and institutional factors and the economic structure.

Furthermore, the South Asia Policy and Research Institute ( 2017 ) raised concerns regarding malnutrition, disparities in malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, yield stagnation, food price fluctuations, income inequality, poor roads and inefficient food systems in Sri Lanka. Multiple issues related to poverty, land fragmentation and degradation, food safety and gaps in policy and programmatic responses jeopardise food security in Sri Lanka (APWLD, 2011 ; Siriwardana et al., 2018 ; Ratnasiri et al., 2019 ). Although absolute poverty has declined sharply due to social security systems, sectoral and regional disparities, pockets of poverty persist in Sri Lanka. For instance, although the National Poverty Headcount Index for 2016 was 4.1, it was 1.9, 4.3 and 8.8 for urban, rural and estate sectors, respectively (Department of Census and Statistics, 2017 ). The country has also been experiencing pockets of poverty with high regional poverty disparities (Herath, 2018 ). Nevertheless, achieving food and nutritional security is a significant concern due to poor nutritional knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP)—specifically among women in marginalised areas—which adversely affect household food security (Weerasekara et al., 2020 ). Moreover, Esham et al. ( 2018 ) emphasised the lack of research on the climate change impacts on food systems in Sri Lanka, including impacts on livestock and fisheries.

The fishery sector in Sri Lanka is also vulnerable to climate change impacts, coastal and marine resource exploitation, pollution and natural habitat destruction (Wickramasinghe, 2010 ). Notably, development trends focused on the maximum use of marine and coastal resources infringe on fishers’ rights (Amarasinghe and De Silva, 2018 ). Approximately 560,000 people are employed in the fisheries sector, which provides livelihoods for over 2.7 million people in coastal communities throughout Sri Lanka (NARA, 2018 ). Fishing practices and fish availability depend on weather patterns, making coastal fishing dependent on seasonal climate variance (Arunatilake et al., 2008 ). Climate change impacts, illegal fishing, inequalities, user conflicts, outdated policies, the overexploitation of resources and insufficient governance trigger vulnerabilities in the fishery sector (Sosai, 2015 ; The World Bank, 2017 ; Ibrahim, 2020 ). Since fish provides ~70% of the animal protein intake in Sri Lanka and the coastal belt hosts approximately 25% of the population and 70% of the hotels and industries (Ministry of Fisheries, 2007 ), any challenges in the fishery sector will jeopardise food security in Sri Lanka.

Table 1 provides excerpts from the in-depth qualitative interviews. The identified issues are specifically relevant to small-scale food producers. The participants explained climate change impacts in detail while emphasising their adverse impacts on rural communities, peasants and agricultural workers, small-scale fishers, and poor, marginalised and indigenous communities. Some informants felt that climate change is a consequence of neoliberal development drive. Recent efforts have resulted in increasing food crop production via commercial agriculture practices that threaten the food security of ordinary people while making them the victims of climate change impacts.

Esham and Garforth ( 2013 ) found that climate change adaptation strategies lacked connections with national development policies in Sri Lanka. Therefore, they recommended further studies on adaptation practices suitable for smallholder farmers and methods of mainstreaming climate change adaptation into national development policies while finding ways to implement them at the national, regional and local levels. Moreover, the Institute of Policy Studies ( 2018 ) emphasised the dearth of policy and strategic interventions in Sri Lanka addressing food insecurity and malnutrition, specifically in agriculture and climate change impacts on agriculture and food systems.

Table 2 presents some of the climate change adaptation practices in Sri Lanka noted during the in-depth interviews. These practices are prevalent among small-scale farmers and rural communities attached to farmer movements and societies. Simultaneously, agricultural extension services also promote certain climate change adaptation practices.

Approximately 25% of the Sri Lankan population lives on US$ 2.50 per day and is the most vulnerable to climate and economic shocks. Thus, establishing the food and nutrition security of 4.6 million malnourished people while providing safe and high-quality food for 2.4 million additional people by 2050 represents a significant challenge in Sri Lanka (World Food Programme, 2017 ). Local food production in Sri Lanka accounts for approximately 85% of domestic food requirements (Institute of Policy Studies, 2018 ), while the livelihoods of approximately 28% of the population depend on agriculture. The adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture will challenge the entire population’s food security and the livelihoods of the vast majority of people (Climate Change Secretariat, 2016 ). Moreover, the living standards of approximately 90% of the population living in areas projected as having severe and moderate hotspots will decline by 7.0% by 2050 under the carbon-intensive scenario (The World Bank, 2018 ). Therefore, despite focusing on resilient food production, Sri Lanka requires a holistic approach to its entire agricultural system (Esham et al., 2018 ). Accordingly, we assess food sovereignty in the next section with the support of different studies worldwide.

Food sovereignty: a global perspective

The 1996 World Food Summit in Rome declared that the goal set during the World Food Conference 1974 to eradicate hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity within a decade was not achieved, mainly due to policy and funding failures (FAO, 1996 ; World Food Summit, 1996 ). While over 800 million people worldwide lack sufficient food, the World Food Summit of 1996 pledged to reduce the number of malnourished people globally by half by 2015. The Rome Declaration on World Food Security emphasised sustainable food security and the eradication of hunger, poverty and malnutrition (Shaw and Clay, 1998 ). However, many studies claim that climate change challenges all dimensions of food security (FAO et al., 2018 ; Firdaus et al., 2019 ; Islam and Wong, 2017 ; Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007 ; Wheeler and von Braun 2013 ). Stringer ( 2016 ) claimed that only food availability has succeeded since the world produces enough food to feed everyone. For instance, global food production has increased by 2.5 times over the last 40 years (Greenpeace International, 2009 ); however, hunger, poverty, and malnutrition increased drastically. Globally, approximately 821 million people were undernourished in 2017 compared to 804 million in 2016, while food insecurity has increased steadily in Asia, Africa and Latin America (FAO et al., 2018 ).

People who depend on family farming are the primary targets and contributors to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations (UN) (FAO and IFAD, 2019 ). However, such people have been considered as obstacles to development than integral parts of the solution (FAO, 2014a , 2014b ). Conversely, progress indicators for achieving the SDGs reveal that 690 million people were hungry, while approximately 750 million people were exposed to severe food insecurity in 2019 (FAO et al., 2020 ). Notably, healthy diets would reduce 97% of health costs and 41 to 74% of the social costs of GHG emissions by 2030. Without overall changes in the current global food systems, the burning issues of poverty, hunger, malnourishment, climate change, and other socio-political and environmental issues will not be resolved. Moreover, the COVID 19 pandemic will have a lasting negative impact on overall progress towards achieving the SDGs (FAO et al., 2020 ).

The food sovereignty concept brought much attention in public debates during the World Food Summit of 1996 and afterwards since it challenges the neoliberal development policies that are driving the world into poverty, hunger and food insecurity (Gordillo and Jeronimo, 2013 ; Levkoe et al., 2019 ; Shaw and Clay, 1998 ; Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005 ). Although numerous organisations have taken the food sovereignty policy framework forward, La Via Campesina (LVC) originally developed the concept in the early 1990s (La Via Campesina, 2003; Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005 ; Wittman, 2011 ). LVC is a transnational network organisation of over 200 million peasants and farmers, small-scale food producers, landless people, agricultural workers, women, young farmers and indigenous people from 182 social organisations in 81 countries worldwide (Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016 ). LVC emerged from the agrarian movements in Latin America and Europe and established itself as a global network of peasant movements in 1993 in response to the Uruguay Round of GATT (McKeon, 2015 ). LVC gradually converged into a transnational social movement and has merged various cultures, epistemologies and diversities (Rosset and Martínez-Torres, 2014 ). LVC and its wider networks demanded the inclusion of a food sovereignty framework into global food policymaking and advocated with relevant organisations such as the WTO, UN General Assembly and FAO by participating in various processes, forums and discussions (La Via Campesina, 2003; Brem-Wilson, 2015 ).

Food sovereignty challenges current global food systems and promotes the creation of new food systems that protect the rights of small-scale food producers, food providers and consumers regarding their choices (Nyeleni, 2007a ; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016 ). The right to food is an internationally recognised and legally enforceable human right that is considered an individual right. In contrast, food sovereignty advocates the right to food as a people’s right (Cotula et al., 2008 ). To realise the right to food, individuals should have access to enough food that meets their dietary needs. Food availability refers to a country’s available food stock to meet domestic demand, whether locally produced or imported (Firdaus et al., 2019 ). The right to food was first affirmed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, followed by several international treaties and instruments (Cotula et al., 2008 ). Despite this, the conventional food security approach does not establish the right to food emphasised in the concept of food sovereignty (Cotula et al., 2008 ; Gordillo and Jeronimo, 2013 ).

On the other hand, food sovereignty supports the rights of individuals, communities, people and countries to produce their food domestically. Since it emphasises land and natural resources access, it has evolved as a collective right with specific policy orientations (Claeys, 2015 ; Patel, 2009 ; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016 ). The food sovereignty policy framework focuses on providing food for people by framing it as the right to food. It promotes and supports the values and contributions of food and respects rights while bringing food providers and consumers together in decision-making processes (Cotula et al., 2008 ; Nyeleni, 2007b ). It also underscores locally controlled food production, distribution and consumption patterns, builds on local food providers’ knowledge and skills, sustains such wisdom and works in harmony with nature while preserving ecosystem functions (Nyeleni, 2007b ; Rosset and Martínez-Torres, 2014 ). Table 3 provides a detailed comparative analysis of conventional agriculture and food sovereignty approaches on different issues.

However, Patel ( 2009 ) claimed that the egalitarian view of food sovereignty is the central issue in functional democracy and resource distribution since it limits conversations on food policies. Thus, the rights emphasised in food sovereignty must be met for everyone in a meaningful way. However, this raises the question of how this aim could be achieved. Sage ( 2014 ) explained the UN Special Rapporteur’s involvement in the right to food constituting food sovereignty, agroecology and small-scale farming in high-profile policy forums. Moreover, several studies have explained how food sovereignty campaigns utilise UN systems while building alliances and social movements to amplify the voice of the voiceless and promote food-producing constituencies and other stakeholders in decision-making processes (Brem-Wilson, 2015 ; Desmarais et al., 2014 ; Edelman et al., 2014 ; Plahe et al., 2017 ; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016 ). Several countries have made food sovereignty a constitutional and legal right in local legislature and policies while creating right-based standards in high-level policy forums, including the UN (Brem-Wilson, 2015 ; Claeys, 2015 ; Gordillo and Jeronimo, 2013 ; McKay et al., 2014 ). The above assessment provides a solid foundation to apply food sovereignty and assess to what extent it was established in the Sri Lankan context.

Food sovereignty in Sri Lanka

Climate change impacts food systems, prevailing poverty, hunger and food insecurity, food rights, neoliberal economic policies and development displacements in Sri Lanka, which has led to social movements towards food sovereignty. Although uncertainties remain regarding who introduced the food sovereignty concept into Sri Lanka, one could strongly claim that it was Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR). As a founding member of LVC and a leader in LVC South Asia (La Via Campesina, 2020 ), MONLAR has applied the food sovereignty framework and supported agrarian struggles in Sri Lanka. MONLAR advocates for agricultural and land policy reforms, ecological agriculture, land to the landless, the protection of natural resources, seed rights and food sovereignty while participating in high-level policy forums locally and internationally (Fernando, 2013 ). The late Sarath Fernando, the founder of MONLAR, was a true believer in nature’s capacity to regenerate itself, which was later termed as ‘regenerative agriculture’. He reframed agroecology with nature’s capacity to regenerate and applied the same natural principles in regenerative agriculture to promote diversity, natural functions and interconnectedness in farmland (Fernando, 2008 ; 2014 ).

In the present study, the participants in the in-depth interviews first learned about food sovereignty through their affiliations with MONLAR and confirmed that MONLAR had introduced food sovereignty into Sri Lanka (Box 1 ). They are long-standing activists and professionals in the development and education sectors related to agriculture, people’s development rights, and environmental conservation. The views gathered from the in-depth interviews indicate that MONLAR and its peasant movement have introduced and promoted food sovereignty and agroecological practices in Sri Lanka.

Ecological agriculture applies ecology to agricultural fields while emphasising agricultural biodiversity conservation (Delgado, 2008 ), which integrates social and ecological principles in agriculture to enhance and promote sustainable food systems (FAO, 2018 ). This process maximises natural functions in farmlands where soil, water, weather patterns, plants, microbes, insects, animals and humans work together to improve biodiversity and food production while tackling climate change (Ching, 2018 ; Ortega-Espes and Finch, 2018 ; Schaller, 2013 ). Since nature has a great capacity to regenerate, ecological agriculture enhances nature’s capacity to provide food. Agroecology goes beyond the farmland, having broader interactions and interdependence with ten elements of agroecology. They function as an analytical tool or guiding principles that help policymakers, agroecological practitioners and other stakeholders to plan, implement and evaluate the agroecological transition process (FAO 2018 ; Barrios et al., 2020 ).

MONLAR uses ecological agriculture as a core strategy of small-scale food producers’ struggle. For instance, Van Daele ( 2013 ) described that ‘while proposing the alternatives of regenerative agriculture, MONLAR frames it in terms of reducing input prices, providing equitable access to markets and achieving food sovereignty in the face of World Trade Organization-induced trade liberalisation’. To address agricultural and environmental crises, MONLAR proposed strengthening the rural agrarian economy. This requires new approaches and methodologies, promotes ecological agriculture, utilises local knowledge and experience, promotes local food production and enables policies (Fernando, 2007 ). Predominantly, MONLAR’s struggle is twofold: (1) Finding urgent solutions for the burning issues of the poor, landless, marginalised and underprivileged; (2) Being involved in pro-poor public policy reforms on land, agriculture, fisheries, water, trade and the environment. The lasting experience of farmer organisations, peoples’ movements and communities demonstrate the effectiveness of ecological agriculture to overcome hunger, poverty and health issues while healing nature against the ecological destruction caused by conventional chemical farming (Fernando, 2014 ).

For instance, zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) in India brings millions of farming families out of poverty, indebtedness and agrarian crises of the neoliberal economy. Notably, ZBNF is not merely an agroecological farming practice but a peasant social movement for justice and change. ZBNF reduces the direct costs of farming, improves the lives and livelihoods of farming families and changes the agricultural practices while being centred in agriculture policy planning and extension services in some state governments in India (Bharucha et al., 2020 ; Khadse et al., 2018 ; Tripathi et al., 2018 ). In Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, India and the Latin American region, agroecology and food sovereignty have become integral components of overall food and agriculture policies, extension services and sustainability approaches. The development rights of the people and stability of food systems are grounded as participatory, transformative and transdisciplinary actions (Altieri and Toledo, 2011 ; Cacho et al., 2018 ; Gliessman, 2013 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Reardon and Perez, 2010 ). In Ecuador, food sovereignty and agroecology have become a government obligation and a strategic goal as per the country’s constitutional provisions and food sovereignty laws (Giunta, 2014 ; Intriago et al., 2017 ). However, some impediments in government policies that go against the realities remain.

In Sri Lanka, academic studies related to agroecology have extensively focused on agroforestry, home gardens and traditional agricultural practices. Home gardens are a mixture of crops, plantations, livestock and occasionally fish (Pushpakumara et al., 2012 ; Yapa, 2018 ; Haan et al., 2020 ). They provide various benefits such as food and nutritional security, firewood and timber, household income and herbal medicines while promoting ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, soil and water conservation and resilience to climate change (Landreth and Saito, 2014 ; Mattsson et al., 2018 ; Melvani et al., 2020 ; Weerahewa et al., 2012 ). The issues surrounding home gardens emphasise a poor understanding of climate change adaptation and mitigation, less stakeholder participation in policy processes, and information and empirical study gaps. Home gardens fully follow agroecological practices with a mixture of chemical and non-chemical agriculture. Studies on food sovereignty and agroecology have noted MONLAR’s involvement in diverse peasant networks (Fernando, 2008 ); however, such efforts have not been adequately documented.

Van Daele ( 2013 ) stated that ‘MONLAR proposes a shift towards non-chemical agriculture, which restores the capacity of the soil and nature to regenerate itself’. In Sarath Fernando’s words, ‘when the soil is provided with organic manure or compost, it can recover its capacity to become an ‘eternal spring of gifts’’. He argues that regenerative agriculture restores ecological relations, making farming viable again and accessible for everyone. The current neoliberal development model in Sri Lanka has failed since nearly all human development indicators provide a daunting picture of the country. Thus, it must move to small-scale sustainable ecological agriculture, developing a cordial relationship between nature and society (Fernando, 2012 , 2013 ). Ecological agriculture promotes soil fertility, enhances soil water and moisture content, promotes integrated pest management, uses organic matter, promotes microbial activity, prevents soil erosion and environmental degradation, and reduces carbon footprints (Ching, 2018 ; Ortega-Espes and Finch, 2018 ; Schaller, 2013 ). Therefore, Fernando ( 2014 ) proposed shifting from conventional to ecological agriculture for economic enhancement, poverty and hunger reduction, and uplifting social justice. Since food sovereignty and ecological agriculture have provided promising results worldwide (Bharucha et al., 2020 ; Chappell et al., 2013 ; Intriago et al., 2017 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Wittman, 2011 ), it is appropriate for Sri Lanka to take progressive steps towards applying these concepts.

Table 4 provides various reasons to promote food sovereignty in Sri Lanka and some possible strategies and policy interventions based on in-depth interviews with informants. These underscore the importance of introducing a new national agricultural policy and development framework for the agricultural sector that promotes sustainable development practices. With this understanding, the next section of the article will look at how food sovereignty has been placed in different parts of the world, the pros and cons of policy reforms and the realities of putting food sovereignty into practice.

Box 1. Expert views on promoting food sovereignty in Sri Lanka

Informant 1 (Development Practitioner/Social Researcher): I received an opportunity to work with MONLAR and its founder Sarath Fernando since the early 1990s, where I learned about food security and the need to go beyond it with food sovereignty to find solutions for the global food crisis and rural poverty. Since then, I began to work for food sovereignty.

Informant 2 (President-National Farmer Movement): As a social activist, I have known the MONLAR founding members since the 1970s. We have been learning about and practising organic farming methods since the year 2000 as an alternative to chemical agriculture. The concept was further improved beyond organic to ecological agriculture and food sovereignty with a broader socio-economic, political and environmental vision, as envisioned by La Via Campesina and locally by MONLAR.

Informant 3 (National Coordinator-MONLAR): In 2003, I joined MONLAR’s youth movement, where I first heard about food sovereignty. As a founding member of La Via Campesina, MONLAR introduced the food sovereignty concept into Sri Lanka. We promote and apply the food sovereignty concept and its principles and practices locally, regionally, and globally.

Informant 4 (Professor-University of Sabaragamuwa): As a professor of ecological agriculture, I was fascinated with the concept of food sovereignty while listening to a lecture given by the late Sarath Fernando of MONLAR in 2007. Since then, I have tried to complement the concepts of ecological agriculture and food sovereignty while providing thorough knowledge to my university students on these subjects.

Informant 5 (National Coordinator-Uva-Wellassa Women Organisation): I first became involved in farmers’ rights and protecting nature in the early 1980s during the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to privatise vast areas of farming and forest lands into a sugarcane factory. Although national policies have not promoted food sovereignty since then, it has become a familiar concept widely discussed locally and globally.

Informant 6 (President-Ecological Agricultural Producers and Entrepreneurs Cooperative Society): I first learned about food sovereignty in the early 2000s while working with mothers and children. If I compare it with the past, food sovereignty is now widespread in public discussions, policy forums and civil rights movements.

Informant 7 (National Coordinator-Savisthri National Women’s Movement): I began to work on food security and sovereignty in the late 1990s. Although food sovereignty is a popular concept discussed in different forums, it has not been a genuine interest of policy and decision-makers.

Informant 8 (Field Coordinator-Bio Foods Pvt. Ltd.): I heard about food sovereignty in 2000 and have received a broader understanding of it from MONLAR since 2001. This concept is prevalent in America, Europe and Latin America; yet, less popular in Asia, including Sri Lanka. Thus, we should move to food sovereignty to safeguard our rights, cultural diversity, health, biodiversity and nature.

Source: In-depth interviews with experts.

Food sovereignty: a case for change

Many countries worldwide are increasingly vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters that can destroy decades of development and cause harm to the natural environment, thereby increasing poverty, hunger, conflicts, and inequality since vulnerable people typically depend on nature for their livelihoods (The World Bank and UN, 2010; Thomas, 2017 ). Concerning crop adaptations to climate change, the effect of CO 2 concentration could be beneficial. With increasing latitude, the adverse effects of increased temperature are reduced, which increased rice crops by 24% under the crop simulation model in East Asia’s monsoon climates (Kim et al., 2013 ). However, climate change negatively impacts crops such as rice, which depends on specific agronomic conditions (Fahad et al., 2019 ). Increased CO 2 levels in the atmosphere will substantially reduce the iron, zinc and protein content of rice, wheat, soybeans and field peas while increasing the carbohydrates (Myers et al., 2014 ; Al‐Hadeethi et al., 2019 ). Despite this, agriculture decisively contributes to climate change. Entire food systems, including production, distribution and consumption, account for approximately 20% of global GHG emissions. Additionally, 6–17% of GHG emissions stem from global land-use changes related to agriculture (Greenpeace International, 2009 ). As one of the primary GHG producers, agriculture should apply sound abatement policies and practices—especially pro-poor mitigation measures—while modifying agricultural practices and productions to meet the growing global food demand.

Recent progress assessments on attaining the SDGs indicate that the world will not achieve the goals by 2030 unless significant changes occur (Moyer and Hedden, 2020 ). The SDGs are interconnected in their nature. Concerning climate change and food security, the key SDGs are Goal 1 (No Poverty), Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) and Goal 13 (Climate Action). Goal 1 focuses on ending global poverty in all forms by ensuring sustainable livelihood and addressing various forms of discrimination and exclusions in development decision-making. Goal 2 focuses on eradicating hunger, malnutrition and achieving food security by promoting sustainable agriculture, changing food production systems, and protecting the environment. Goal 13 relates to taking immediate actions to tackle climate change impacts by responding nationally and globally (United Nations, 2015 ; Herath, 2018 ; Moyer and Hedden, 2020 ). After decades of struggling to combat poverty, food insecurity, hunger, malnutrition and climate change, the entire world is at a crossroads to take firm decisions on whether to continue our efforts with food security approaches or move on to food sovereignty. The obvious option is to move on to food sovereignty since dominant neoliberal agriculture approaches, and corporate food chains have failed to feed the world. Hence, it is essential to find ways to make food sovereignty a reality by switching from conventional to sustainable agriculture. However, this may require significant changes in policy decisions and agricultural practices.

Agroecology promotes farming without significant investments, utilises family labour, creates partnerships with consumers, and eliminates factors affecting food insecurity, hunger, poverty and disasters while ensuring food sovereignty. ZBNF in India is one of the best cases for justifying this claim. Khadse et al. ( 2018 ) elaborated on how ZBNF developed as a social movement in Karnataka, India, by addressing the indebtedness and suicides of peasants and farmers. The ZBNF movement goes beyond the technical aspects of agroecological farming by applying social aspects such as networking, movement building, setting up local markets, advocating for public policies, organising stakeholders at different levels, leadership building, and pedagogical processes and discourses. In Andhra Pradesh, India, ZBNF drastically reduced farming costs while producing high yields with non-chemical inputs, which led the state government to initiate ZBNF among all 6 million farmers in the state. This case signifies the importance of policy formation, financing and institutional support, capacity building and extension, farmer-centred development initiatives, learning ecosystems and networking (Bharucha et al., 2020 ). ZBNF widely contributes to achieving the SDGs in India. The massive-scale ZBNF programme in Andhra Pradesh has already experienced progress related to all SDGs and approximately 25% of the relevant targets (Tripathi et al., 2018 ).

By assessing the key drivers and multidimensional process of scaling up agroecological movements in Central America, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and India, Cacho et al. ( 2018 ) identified eight key drivers: (i) catch a crisis that requires alternatives, (ii) establish social organisations and social process, (iii) progressive learning processes, (iv) effective agroecological practices, (v) mobilising discourses, (vi) established external allies, (vii) favourable markets and (viii) favourable policies. Accordingly, crises in society define the social process drivers while social organisations bring people together, and social processes promote sharing and learning among people. Concise and compelling agroecological processes help farmers practice and replicate them, which makes these processes easy to teach and learn. Concise and well-framed discourses promote people to support and practice them while motivating them to stand against the neoliberal agricultural model. External allies and stakeholders bring many resources to scale up the process by playing critical roles and amplifying the process. As a strategic approach, alternative market systems transform the food system and promote agroecological food, influencing public policies. Enacting relevant public policies and supportive political systems helps establish and scale up agroecology while institutionalising the entire process.

Food sovereignty is a concept of action’ that emerged from transnational peasant movements and offered new visions and prospects for resolving the most pressing issues of our time. It is above the right to food and emerged as a reaction to food security, neoliberal industrial agriculture and corporate food systems (La Via Campesina, 2018 ). Food sovereignty is a revolutionary approach capable of preventing food systems, environments and societies from totally collapsing. Conventional agriculture and the agro-industrial approach could not eradicate global hunger, malnutrition and poverty. Indeed, conventional agriculture is one of the significant contributors to global warming and climate change. Conversely, food sovereignty relates to peoples’ and countries’ rights to decide on and produce their food, safeguard nature and promote ecosystem services (La Via Campesina, 2003).

Since the food sovereignty concept was presented at the World Food Summit in 1996, it influenced propaganda, debates and discussions in many international forums, including the UN. Such involvement was instrumental in developing several UN guidelines (e.g., the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas). The Nyeleni Forum and Nyeleni Declaration on Food Sovereignty are critical milestones in bringing food sovereignty to the international level. This has led some countries to include food sovereignty in their constitutions. Since Ecuador first constitutionalised food sovereignty in 2008, Senegal, Bolivia, Mali, Nepal, Egypt and Venezuela have followed. Moreover, countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras and Guatemala have legally recognised food security, food sovereignty and the right to food. Such constitutional, legal and institutional recognition underscores the credibility and validity of food sovereignty approaches while providing a boost for a paradigm shift on a global scale.

By assessing the state’s role in food sovereignty in three Latin American countries (i.e., Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela), McKay et al. ( 2014 ) underscored state-society relations in terms of development approaches, the redistribution of power over controlling food systems, resources and the class struggle. However, they noted that food sovereignty in said countries limits the way states recognise it, which has resulted in a reduction in pro-poor initiatives in some situations. During the new constitutional drafting process in Ecuador in 2007, the assembly diluted the food sovereignty proposal of social movements by limiting peasants’ participation to a bureaucratic ‘council’ and removing land and land reform provisions. Even with such impediments, food sovereignty involvement promotes participatory decision-making at local levels, which sets the groundwork to achieve food sovereignty in the long run.

Climate change impacts on food systems are complex, yet impacts on agriculture production, incomes, food prices, safety, quality and food delivery are evident (Vermeulen, Campbell, and Ingram, 2012 ). Low-income food producers and consumers would face the adverse impacts of climate change. Thus, modern agriculture and food systems should go beyond the farm gate to rural communities to attain new food systems, while farms should be designed using ecological principles where the place, people and species inhabit spaces together (Francis et al., 2003 ; Gliessman, 2013 ; Cacho et al., 2018 ). This very idea views sustainability as the key to addressing issues surrounding agriculture and food systems. Therefore, ensuring sustainability as the fifth dimension of food security assessments is the way forward. Otherwise, current policies and interventions could intensify future food insecurity (Berry et al., 2015 ). Hence, it is essential to assess sustainability in detail. Nonetheless, persisting Poverty and food insecurity challenge the current food production and distribution systems (Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005 ). Therefore, food security, nutritional security and food sovereignty should be considered together within the framework of the right to food (Gordillo and Jeronimo, 2013 ).

Pimbert ( 2010 ) claims that ‘existing decision-making and policy processes that are based on models of representative democracy are inadequate for transformation towards food sovereignty’. Therefore, it requires establishing a direct democratic system in which citizens can exercise their rights related to governance setting at local, regional and national levels. Food sovereignty is a socio-political solution to the global food system crisis that requires the awareness and actions of all stakeholders. Moreover, it requires structural changes in the global economic order to end global hunger by transforming the global food system. Resolving the looming issues of climate change and food security while moving towards food sovereignty requires all countries worldwide to take immediate and accelerated actions and develop partnerships among governments and relevant stakeholders at all levels. Therefore, this requires comprehensive and radical changes in government structures, international trade and policies, organisations, and bureaucratic and global systems.

Concluding remarks

Sri Lanka is predominantly an agriculture-based country, with over 80% of its food producers being small-scale farmers. Thus, promoting food sovereignty and applying agroecological practices in agriculture, fisheries and livestock farming are viable and sustainable practices to combat ongoing massive-scale agro-industrial approaches. In Sri Lanka, food security extensively depends on agriculture, fisheries and livestock production. However, government policies are far more favourable towards the industry and service sectors. Therefore, the agricultural sector’s share in national accounts has been declining sharply. New development projects have resulted in tremendous adversities for natural resources while also creating labour shortages in agriculture. A holistic approach to food security and sustainability is paramount to make the agricultural sector productive and sustainable. It also requires targeted interventions in marginalised and vulnerable communities, regional agricultural development programmes, and employment opportunities to tackle malnutrition, poverty and hunger. Realising the right to food requires safeguarding the rights of small-scale food producers, local distributors and consumers to decide on what they produce, share and eat. This approach should be brought to the regional and national levels by defining and designing a local production-oriented food and agricultural system that forms an integral part of the country’s agricultural policy framework.

Achieving food sovereignty in Sri Lanka and many other countries have become the focus of peasant development and social movements. Owing to the current development drive, profit-oriented agro-industries and different priorities of governments, greater possibilities for food sovereignty and agroecology have been sidelined. In Sri Lanka, few studies have been conducted on agroecology and food sovereignty, while studies on climate change and food security are limited to sectoral rather than holistic approaches. Therefore, academics should initiate research and publish scientific articles on food sovereignty, agroecology, small-scale food producers (i.e., agricultural workers, small-scale fishers, pastoralists and landless people), local food distributors and consumers. The emergence and development of peasant movements, local seed banks, traditional seed and planting material conservation, natural farming systems, and peasant and social movements in lobbying, advocacy, policy and decision-making processes also require much attention from academics and social researchers. Overall, suppose we aim to make this world sustainable and liveable over the long term by resolving food insecurity, hunger and poverty while addressing climate change. In that case, we should recognise, secure and promote the rights of small-scale food producers, revamp food systems and sustain ecosystem services by promoting agroecological principles and food sovereignty.

Data availability

All secondary data analysed and cited in this article are available in the public domain, while the primary datasets analysed during the study are not publicly available due to ethical considerations but may be provided upon an appropriate request to the corresponding author.

Abeysekera AB, Punyawardena BVR, Marambe B et al. (2019) Effect of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on inter-seasonal variability of rainfall in wet and intermediate zones of Sri Lanka. Trop Agric 167:14–27

Google Scholar  

Al‐Hadeethi I, Li Y, Odhafa AKH et al. (2019) Assessment of grain quality in terms of functional group response to elevated [CO 2], water, and nitrogen using a meta‐analysis: grain protein, zinc, and iron under future climate. Ecol Evol 9:7425–7437. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5210

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Altieri MA, Toledo VM (2011) The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J Peasant Stud 38:587–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947

Article   Google Scholar  

Amarasinghe O, De Silva N (2018) Aiming for holistic management. SAMUDRA Issue no. 80. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

Andrade C (2021) The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian J Psychol Med 43:86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

APWLD (2011) Climate justice briefs: rural women’s adaptation strategies, Sri Lanka. Asia Pacific Forum for Women Law and Development, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Arunatilake N, Gunawardena A, Marawila D et al. (2008) Analysis of the fisheries sector in Sri Lanka: guided case studies for value chain development in conflict-affected environments. United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC

Barrios E, Gemmill-Herren B, Bicksler A et al. (2020) The 10 Elements of Agroecology: enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst People 16:230–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1808705

Berry EM, Dernini S, Burlingame B et al. (2015) Food security and sustainability: can one exist without the other? Public Health Nutr 18:2293–2302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001500021X

Bharucha ZP, Mitjans SB, Pretty J (2020) Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India*. Int J Agric Sustain 18:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

Brem-Wilson J (2015) Towards food sovereignty: interrogating peasant voice in the United Nations Committee on World Food Security. J Peasant Stud 42:73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.968143

Cacho MMYTG, Giraldo OF, Aldasoro M et al. (2018) Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 42:637–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

Capone R, El Bilali H, Debs P et al. (2014) Food system sustainability and food security: connecting the dots. J Food Secur 2:13–22. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-2-1-2

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2019) Economic and social statistics of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Chappell MJ, Wittman H, Bacon CM, et al (2013) Food sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America. F1000Research 2: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.2-235.v1

Chihambakwe M, Mafongoya P, Jiri O (2018) Urban and peri-urban agriculture as a pathway to food security: a review mapping the use of food sovereignty. Challenges 10:6. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010006

Ching LL (2018) Agroecology for sustainable food systems. Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia

Claeys P (2015) Food sovereignty and the recognition of new rights for peasants at the UN: a critical overview of la via campesina’s rights claims over the last 20 years. Globalizations 12:452–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.957929

Climate Change Secretariat (2016) National adaptation plan for climate change impacts in Sri Lanka: 2016–2025. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Coslet C, Goodbody S, Guccione C (2017) Special report: FAO/WFP crop and food security assessment mission to Sri Lanka. FAO and WFP, Rome, Italy

Cotula L, Djire M, Tanga RW (2008) The right to food and access to natural resources. FAO, Rome, Italy

Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D et al. (2021) Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

Van Daele W (2013) The political economy of desire in ritual and activism in Sri Lanka. In: Carbonnier G, Kartas M, Silva KT (eds) International development policy: religion and development. Palgrave Macmillan, UK, London, pp. 159–173

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Delgado A (2008) Opening up for participation in agro-biodiversity conservation: the expert-lay interplay in a Brazilian social movement. J Agric Environ Ethics 21:559–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9117-6

Department of Census and Statistics (2017) Poverty indicators household income and expenditure survey-2016. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Desmarais AA, Rivera-Ferre MG, Gasco B (2014) Building alliances for food sovereignty: La Vía Campesina, NGOs, and social movements. In: Research in rural sociology and development. pp. 89–110

Eckstein D, Hutfils M-L, Winges M (2019) Global climate change index 2019: who suffers most from extreme whether events? Germanwatch, Bonn, Germany

Edelman M, Weis T, Baviskar A et al. (2014) Introduction: critical perspectives on food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 41:911–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.963568

Esham M, Garforth C (2013) Climate change and agricultural adaptation in Sri Lanka: a review. Clim Dev 5:66–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2012.762333

Esham M, Jacobs B, Rosairo HSR, Siddighi BB (2018) Climate change and food security: a Sri Lankan perspective. Environ Dev Sustain 20:1017–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9945-5

Fahad S, Adnan M, Noor M, et al (2019) Major constraints for global rice production. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Fujita M, Nahar K, Biswas JK (eds) Advances in rice research for abiotic stress tolerance. Elsevier, pp. 1–22

FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture: climate change, agriculture and food security. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO (2018) The 10 elements of agroecology: guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO (2006) Food security: policy brief. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO (2008) Climate change and food security: a framework document. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO (2014a) The state of food and agriculture: innovation in family farming. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO (1996) The World Food Summit 1996. http://www.fao.org/wfs/ . Accessed 12 Jan 2021

FAO (2014b) The right to food: past commitment, current obligation, further action for the future. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO and IFAD (2019) United nations decade of family farming 2019-2028: global action plan. FAO and IFAD, Rome, Italy

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF. et al. (2018) Food security and nutrition in the world: building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

FAO, IFAD, UNISEF. et al. (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO of UN, Rome, Italy

Fernando S (2013) Who should own and control land. MONLAR, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Fernando S (2008) Approaching food as a strategy towards global survival in a better world Omertaa, J Appl Anthropol 0039:312–318

Fernando S (2014) Ecological agriculture is the way out of poverty. In: Social watch (ed) Social watch report 2014. Montevideo, Uruguay

Fernando S (2007) Peasants situation and human rights in Sri Lanka. Focus Asia-Pacific 50:1–4

Fernando S (2012) People and the environment should be first. In: Social Watch (ed) Social Watch Report 2012-The Right to a Future. Social Watch, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 174–175

Firdaus RBR, Gunaratne MS, Rahmat SR, Kamsi NS (2019) Does climate change only affect food availability? What else matters? Cogent Food Agric 5:1707607. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1707607

Firdaus RBR, Leong Tan M, Rahmat SR, Senevi Gunaratne M (2020) Paddy, rice and food security in Malaysia: a review of climate change impacts. Cogent Soc Sci 6:1818373. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1818373

Firdaus RBR, Mohamad SS, Singh PSJ et al. (2018) Impact of climate change on agriculture based on the crop growth simulation (CGS) model. Geogr Malaysian J Soc Sp 14:53–66

Foti J, De Silva L (2010) A seat at the table: including the poor in decisions for development and environment. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA

Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S et al. (2003) Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. J Sustain Agric 22:99–118. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_10

Giunta I (2014) Food sovereignty in Ecuador: peasant struggles and the challenge of institutionalization. J Peasant Stud 41:1201–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.938057

Gliessman S (2013) Agroecology: growing the roots of resistance. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37:19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736927

Gordillo G, Jeronimo OM (2013) Food security and sovereignty- base document for discussion. FAO, Rome, Italy

Greenpeace International (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads: food for survival. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Haan R de, Hambly Odame H, Thevathasan N, Nissanka SP (2020) Local knowledge and perspectives of change in homegardens: a photovoice study in Kandy District, Sri Lanka. Sustain 12: https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176866

Hapuarachchi HASU, Jayawardena IMSP (2015) Modulation of seasonal rainfall in Sri Lanka by ENSO extremes. Sri Lanka J Meteorol 1:3–11

Herath G (2018) Challenges to meeting the UN sustainable development goals in Sri Lanka. Asian Surv 58:726–746. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2018.58.4.726

Ibrahim FA (2020) Between the sea and the land: small-scale fishers and multiple vulnerabilities in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka J Soc Sci 43:5–20. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljss.v43i1.7641

IFAD (2014) The international year of family farming: IFAD’s commitment and call for action. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy

IMF (2018) Sri Lanka: selected issues. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, USA

Institute of Policy Studies (2018) Climate change, food security and rural livelihoods in Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Intriago R, Amézcua RG, Bravo E, O’Connell C (2017) Agroecology in Ecuador: historical processes, achievements, and challenges. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 41:311–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1284174

Islam S, Wong AT (2017) Climate change and food in/security: a critical nexus. Environments 4:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4020038

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Jayawardene H, Jayewardene D, Sonnadara D (2015) Interannual variability of precipitation in Sri Lanka. J Natl Sci Found Sri Lanka 43:75. https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v43i1.7917

Khadse A, Rosset PM, Morales H, Ferguson BG (2018) Taking agroecology to scale: the Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. J Peasant Stud 45:192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450

Kim H-Y, Ko J, Kang S, Tenhunen J (2013) Impacts of climate change on paddy rice yield in a temperate climate. Glob Chang Biol 19:548–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12047

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

La Via Campesina (2018) Food sovereignty now: a guide to food sovereignty. European Coordination Via Campesina, Bruxelles, Belgium

La Via Campesina (2003) Food sovereignty: Via Campesina. https://viacampesina.org/en/food-sovereignty/ . Accessed 13 Jan 2021

La Via Campesina (2020) Via Campesina: International Peasants’ Movement. In: La Via Campesina. https://viacampesina.org/en . Accessed 13 Jan 2021

Landreth N, Saito O (2014) An ecosystem services approach to sustainable livelihoods in the homegardens of Kandy, Sri Lanka. Aust Geogr 45:355–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.930003

Levkoe CZ, Brem-Wilson J, Anderson CR (2019) People, power, change: three pillars of a food sovereignty research praxis. J Peasant Stud 46:1389–1412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1512488

Mani M, Bandyopadhyay S, Chonabayashi S et al. (2018) South Asia’s hotspots: the impact of temparature and precipitation changes on living standards. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC

Book   Google Scholar  

Marambe B, Ranjith Punyawardena PS, Premalal S et al. (2015) Climate, climate risk, and food security in Sri Lanka: the need for strengthening adaptation strategies. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of climate change adaptation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1759–1789

Mattsson E, Ostwald M, Nissanka SP (2018) What is good about Sri Lankan homegardens with regards to food security? A synthesis of the current scientific knowledge of a multifunctional land-use system. Agrofor Syst 92:1469–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0093-6

McKay B, Nehring R, Walsh-Dilley M (2014) The ‘state’ of food sovereignty in Latin America: political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. J Peasant Stud 41:1175–1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.964217

McKeon N (2015) La Via Campesina: the ‘peasants” way’ to changing the system, not the climate.’. J World-Systems Res 21:241–249. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2015.19

Melvani K, Myers B, Palaniandavan N, et al (2020) Forest gardens increase the financial viability of farming enterprises in Sri Lanka. Agrofor Syst 9: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00564-9

Menike LMCS, Keeragalaarachchi KAGP (2016) Adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers in rural communities: evidence from Sri Lanka. Procedia Food Sci 6:288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2016.02.057

Ministry of Agriculture (2019) Sri Lanka Overarching Agricultural Policy (Draft). Colombo, Sri Lanka

Ministry of Fisheries (2007) Ten year development policy framework of the fisheries and aquatic resources sector. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Moyer JD, Hedden S (2020) Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals? World Dev 127:104749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104749

Myers SS, Zanobetti A, Kloog I et al. (2014) Increasing CO 2 threatens human nutrition. Nature 510:139–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13179

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

NARA (2018) Fisheries industry outlook-2017. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Nyeleni (2007a) Declaration of Nyeleni 2007. Selingue, Mali

Nyeleni (2007b) Nyeleni synthesis report. Selingue, Mali

Ortega-Espes D, Finch S (2018) Agroecology: innovating for sustainable agriculture & food systems. Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Patel R (2009) Food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 36:663–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903143079

Pimbert M (2010) Towards food sovereignty: reclaiming autonomous food systems. CAFS, IIED and RCC, London and Munich

Plahe J, Wright S, Marembo M. (2017) Livelihoods crises in Vidarbha, India: food sovereignty through traditional farming systems as a possible solution. J South Asian Stud 40:600–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2017.1339581

Pushpakumara DKNG, Marambe B, Silva GLLP et al. (2012) A Review of research on homegardens in Sri lanka: the status, importance and future perspective. Trop Agric 160:55–125

Ratnasiri S, Walisinghe R, Rohde N, Guest R (2019) The effects of climatic variation on rice production in Sri Lanka. Appl Econ 51:4700–4710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1597253

Reardon JAS, Perez RA (2010) Agroecology and the development of indicators of food sovereignty in cuban food systems. J Sustain Agric 34:907–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2010.519205

Rosset PM, Martínez-Torres ME (2014) Food sovereignty and agroecology in the convergence of rural social movements. In: Constance DH, Renard M-C, Rivera-Ferre MG (eds) Alternative agrifood movements: patterns of convergence and divergence. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 137–157

Sage C (2014) Food security, food sovereignty and the special rapporteur. Dialogues Hum Geogr 4:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537156

Sathischandra HGAS, Marambe B, Punyawardena R (2014) Seasonal changes in temperature and rainfall and its relationship with the incidence of weeds and insect pests in rice (Oryza sativa L) cultivation in Sri Lanka. Clim Chang Environ Sustain 2:105–115. https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-642X.2014.00002.7

Schaller N (2013) Agro-ecology: different definitions, common principles. Centre for Studies and Strategic Foresight, Cedex, France

Schmidhuber J, Tubiello FN (2007) Global food security under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19703–19708. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701976104

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De Schutter O (2014) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Final report: the transformative potential of the right to food, United Nations General Essembly, New York, NY, USA

Seo S-NN, Mendelsohn R, Munasinghe M (2005) Climate change and agriculture in Sri Lanka: a Ricardian valuation. Environ Dev Econ 10:581–596. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X05002044

Shaw DJ, Clay EJ (1998) Global hunger and food security after the World Food Summit. Can J Dev Stud Can d’études du développement 19:55–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.1998.9669778

Siriwardana CSA, Jayasiri GP, Hettiarachchi SSL (2018) Investigation of efficiency and effectiveness of the existing disaster management frameworks in Sri Lanka. Procedia Eng 212:1091–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.141

Sosai AS (2015) Illegal fishing activity‒a new threat in mannar island coastal area (Sri Lanka). Transylvanian Rev Syst Ecol Res 17:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/trser-2015-0051

South Asia Policy & Research Institute (2017) National strategic review of food security and nutrition towards zero hunger. WFP, Rome, Italy

Stringer R (2016) Food security global overview. In: Caraher M, Coveney J (eds) Food poverty and insecurity: international food inequalities, First. Springer International Publishing AG, 125

Sumathipala W (2014) El Nino-A short term signal of a long term and a large scale climate variation. J Natl Sci Found Sri Lanka 42:199–200. https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v42i3.7405

Tan BT, Fam PS, Firdaus RBR et al. (2021) Impact of climate change on rice yield in Malaysia: a panel data analysis. Agriculture 11:569. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11060569

The Economist Intellgence Unit (2019) Global Food Security Index 2019: strengthening food systems and the environment through innovation and investment. London, UK

The Global Economy.com (2020) Sri Lanka Economic Indicators. Bus Econ data 200 Ctries. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Sri-Lanka/ . Accessed 28 Aug 2020

The World Bank (2018) Sri Lanka’ s hotspots:the impact of temperature and precipitation changes on living standard. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC

The World Bank (2017) Sri Lanka: managing coastal natural wealth. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC

The World Bank, UN (2010) Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. The World Bank Group, Washington DC

Thomas V (2017) Climate change and natural disasters: Transforming economies and policies for a sustainable future. Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY

Tripathi S, Shahidi T, Nagbhushan S, Gupta N (2018) Zero budget natural farming for the sustainable development goals. Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Cóndor Golec RD et al. (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks. FAO, Rome, Italy

UNDRR (2019) Disaster risk reduction in Sri Lanka. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Bangkok, Thailand

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations general assembly, New York. NY, USA

United Nations. 2019. The sustainable development goals report 2019. The sustainable development goals report 2019. New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.29171/azu_acku_pamphlet_k3240_s878_2016

Valerio MA, Rodriguez N, Winkler P et al. (2016) Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z

Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

Walsh-Dilley M, Wolford W, McCarthy J (2016) Rights for resilience: food sovereignty, power, and resilience in development practice. Ecol Soc 21 (1): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07981-210111

Weerahewa J, Pushpakumara G, Silva P, et al (2012) Are homegarden ecosystems resilient to climate change? An analysis of adaptation strategies of homegardens in Sri Lanka. APN Sci Bull 02: 22–27

Weerasekara PC, Withanachchi CR, Ginigaddara GAS, Ploeger A (2020) Food and nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among reproductive-age women in marginalized areas in Sri Lanka. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:3985. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113985

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wheeler T, von Braun J (2013) Climate change impacts on global food security. Science (80-) 341:508–513. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239402

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wickramasinghe D (2010) Coastal ecosystems and climate vulnerability in Sri Lanka. In: Shaw R, Pulhin JM, Jacqueline Pereira J (eds) Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: an Asian perspective (community, environment and disaster risk management). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 307–326

Windfuhr M, Jonsen J (2005) Food sovereignty: towards democracy in localized food systems, first edit. ITGD Publishing, Warwickshire, UK

Wittman H (2011) Food sovereignty: a new rights framework for food and nature? Environ Soc Res 2:87–105. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2011.020106

World Food Programme (2017) Sri Lanka country strategic plan (2018-2022). WFP, Rome, Italy

World Food Summit (1996) Rome declaration on world food security. http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm . Accessed 14 Aug 2020

Yadav SS, Hegde VS, Habibi AB, et al. (2019) Climate change, agriculture and food security. In: Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL, et al., DH (ed) Food security and climate change, First Edit. John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Yapa LGDS (2018) Contribution of home gardens to household food security in Sri Lanka: a comparative study on wet zone and intermediate zone. J Soc Sci Humanit Rev 3:124. https://doi.org/10.4038/jsshr.v3i3.11

Yatawara RA (2005) Poverty and trade issues in Sri Lanka. Centre for Poverty Analysis, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Download references

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement to ‘Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for Fundamental Research Grant Scheme with Project Code: FRGS/1/2018/SS08/USM/02/5’. The authors of this article further acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Renuka Liyandeniya in field data collection.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, 11800, Malaysia

Mahinda Senevi Gunaratne & R. B. Radin Firdaus

Department of Economics, Faculty of Arts, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, 20400, Sri Lanka

Shamila Indika Rathnasooriya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. B. Radin Firdaus .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM/JEPeM/20080404).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gunaratne, M.S., Radin Firdaus, R.B. & Rathnasooriya, S.I. Climate change and food security in Sri Lanka: towards food sovereignty. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00917-4

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2021

Accepted : 27 September 2021

Published : 12 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00917-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

The links between climate change and migration: a review of south asian experiences.

• Mufti Nadimul Quamar Ahmed
• Jennifer E. Givens
• Aaron Arredondo

SN Social Sciences (2024)

Herbicide Use in the Era of Farm to Fork: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Future Implications

• Vassilios Triantafyllidis
• Antonios Mavroeidis
• Ioanna Kakabouki

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution (2023)

Modern plant biotechnology as a strategy in addressing climate change and attaining food security

• T. I. K. Munaweera
• N. U. Jayawardana
• Nipunika Dissanayake

Agriculture & Food Security (2022)

Intelligently driven performance management: an enabler of real-time research forecasting for innovative commercial agriculture

• Prabath Chaminda Abeysiriwardana
• Udith K. Jayasinghe-Mudalige
• K. B. Madhushani

SN Social Sciences (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Supermarket Food Waste and Current Waste Reduction, Resource Recovery and Reuse Practices-Case Study from Colombo Metropolitan Area, Sri Lanka

• DSpace Home
• USJP - International and National Conferences
• Faculty of Applied Sciences
• International Forestry and Environment Symposium-2018

Show full item record

Files in this item

This item appears in the following collection(s).

• International Forestry and Environment Symposium-2018 [135]

Search DSpace

All of dspace.

• Communities & Collections
• By Issue Date

This Collection

Food waste measurement as a tool for prevention and reduction: A case study from a hotel in Colombo, Sri Lanka

Date Issued

Date online, review status, access rights, usage rights.

CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 2021. Food waste measurement as a tool for prevention and reduction: A case study from a hotel in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 8p. (WLE Briefing Note Series No. 30)

Permanent link to cite or share this item

External link to download this item, abstract/description.

The amount of food waste generated in Local Authority areas of Sri Lanka ranges between 50% and 76% of the total municipal solid waste, with an average of 56% (FAO and IWMI 2021a). The total food waste generated is estimated to be nearly 4,000 tons/day (Arachchige et al. 2019; FAO and IWMI 2021b). In 2020, a study conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) focusing on three major waste disposal centers in the Western Province of Sri Lanka – Karadiyana, Kerawalapitiya and Kaduwela – revealed that about 724 tons of the total waste generated in a day is food waste (i.e., 55% of total waste).

AGROVOC Keywords

Investors/sponsors, collections.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Urban stakeholder analysis for food waste prevention and reduction in Sri Lanka

Related Papers

Mohamed Aheeyar

Sustainability

Zarafath Zimar

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) has become a major challenge in Sri Lanka for post-conflict development activities. Many urban areas are facing severe problems in managing 10 to 50 metric tons of waste per day. However, limited research has been carried out to identify the key issues and policy gaps in MSWM. This research studies the existing complexities of MSWM processes, practices, and emerging challenges in three highly congested urban areas in the south-eastern coast of Sri Lanka. A mixed method strategy using field observations, semi-structured interviews and secondary data sources was employed for the data collection. The study revealed that, although the MSWM systems in the urban areas include all necessary elements, their effectiveness and efficiency are not satisfactory due to poor or non-segregation of waste at the source of generation; lack of resources; absence of regulation to reduce waste generation and control polluters; absence of regular collection schedule...

Therese Asplund

The prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse of waste is promoted by the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, but many countries lack both necessary resources and infrastructure for sound waste management. While literature pinpoints the need for an engaged public and suggests a range of factors and supportive actions that may impact citizens’ waste behaviour, qualitative in-depth studies for engaging in waste management practices remain scarce. This study aimed to investigate perceptions of waste management and underlying behaviours for waste practices in the context of household waste management in Sri Lanka. Six focus group interviews were held with 23 residents across 6 regions in Sri Lanka. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed perceptions of four waste management systems, together with five motivational aspects of waste practices in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The analysis further considers how the motivational aspects are interli...

Ananda Ranawake

Introduction Five basic phases of the consumer cycle are extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. The art of harmonizing the relationship between resource extraction and its disposal after utilization could be defined as Solid Waste Management (SWM). Mass consumerism always used to be a phenomenon common to all civilities. This phenomenon rapidly expanded during late 18th century parallel to the industrial revolution. At present, consumerism has been further developing without limits. Ancient civilities stopped traveling to change their contaminated territories being eradicated from the earth when indirect extraction through agriculture became marginally unproductive (Tainter 2009). Another reason for such eradications was the territorial contamination caused by human disposals, because they were not able to control territorial contaminations in their newly built permanent civilities. In the present world, marginal productivity is evident by economic crisis, while territorial contamination is evident by damages caused by wrong SWM. If no positive responses are found with regard to these two factors, such days when our actual civility will be eradicated could be measured in decades. Responding to this situation, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) has declared that the general consumption of commodities by human beings that has reached to a non-returning point should keep under control (UNCED 1992). For the purpose they recommend that the state of current knowledge on SWM represented by the 3R Principles, namely, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Adopting 3R principles, raw materials could be re-extracted from disposed waste, which is the last phase in mass consumerism. Adopting the 3R principles in SWM could mitigate the extracting of raw material from the earth, which is the first phase of consumerism. The adoption of 3R is also a response to environmental pollution, overproduction and overconsumption (Gordon 2015). Because mass consumerism is not a reversible phenomenon, there are no alternatives other than adopting the 3R principles. About a quarter of a century has elapsed since the UNCED resolution of 1992 has been passed (UNFCCC 2006). Yet, the success of SWM efforts seems to be a global failure. Therefore, a necessity for evaluation of SWM practices has emerged in the global scale.

Menaha Thayaparan

Effective implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) strategies remains an issue in many developing countries. To analyse the effectiveness of the strategies, it is vital to understand the techniques employed to implement such strategies. Hence, this paper aims to analyse the techniques in implementing MSWM strategies in Sri Lanka. Single case study on Moratuwa municipality, which is considered as a critical case, was conducted. The study used a mixed approach; predominantly qualitative. Using purposive sampling method, semi-structured interviews were carried among 19 residents, one from each urban division of Moratuwa Municipal Council (MC), 03 MC officers, and 02 waste collectors. Additionally, 75 questionnaires were collected from residents. Code-based content analysis and quantitative statistical methods were used to analyse the interviews and questionnaires respectively. The community and MC have adopted various techniques in implementing MSWM strategies. Neverth...

E3S Web of Conferences

Ayesha Madhuwanthi

High-density urban development with mixed land uses in Sri Lankan coastal cities generate large amounts of plastic and polythene waste (PPW). The limited capacity of city councils, the deficiencies of current waste management practices and poor awareness, a significant proportion of PPW is being released into the environment, which in turn has accumulated in the marine ecosystem through canal networks. This paper analyses the current practices of PPW disposal in one such coastal region based on a sample of 579 households, 182 commercial properties, and 103 institutions. Results indicate that out of 29 tons of PPW generated in the region, around 8% was disposed into the environment in the form of landfill, burning, and discharging into water bodies. Non-parametric correlations indicate a significant correlation between reduction of PPW (waste generators), private waste collection and awareness by local media. Qualitative analysis highlights the existing limitations of current practic...

Municipal Solid Wastes are becoming a multidimensional threat to the Sri Lankan environment. Especially the solutions are needed to reduce the amount of the environmental problem caused by haphazard solid wastes disposal done by the local governments and the public Even though the country’s Solid Waste Management (SWM) strategy is aimed to reduce the amount of final disposal by introducing reuse trends, proper collection methods, source segregation and improved recovery of recyclables still needed to be established. But there should be the knowledge of the amount of waste generation and their composition to guide for the appropriate solutions which the methods can be implemented. Solid Wastes generation from the urban households would cause many problems than in the rural. The consumption rates and the patterns are different from each High, Middle and Low income levels in the urban areas and as well as from the urban areas to the rural areas, so that the waste generation pattern als...

Nishara Fernando

This literature review focuses on exploring solid waste management in Sri Lanka in relation to three key thematic areas namely; (1) the institutional architecture of waste governance (2) the waste chain and related socially differentiated labor practices, and (3) accompanying discourses on waste and waste-work in Sri Lanka.

mansoor ali

Fadlullah ISSA

This paper explored the indigenous knowledge and preservation techniques used in vegetable preservation among rural households in Niger State, Nigeria. Primary data were collected from a purposively selected sample of 250 vegetable farmers with the use of interview guide and focus group discussions (FGDs). Data collected were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis while the FGDs responses were reported verbatim and thereafter translated. Results showed that 100.0, 84.4 and 76.8 percents of the respondents grew tomatoes, jute mallow and fluted pumpkin respectively. Majority used sun-drying (97.2%), dewing (87.2%); jute-sack (99.6%) and basket (98.8%) while more than half (58.8%) used salting and few (3.6%) adopted bottling. It could be concluded that rural households in Niger State had knowledge of indigenous preservation techniques for vegetables and the practice of the techniques was common among them. The study therefore recommends that: indigenous practices for vegetable preservation should be incorporated into development planning, contemporary development strategies and resource management arrangements; documents on indigenous practice for vegetable preservation should be replicated throughout the study area.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Applied and Natural Science

Ciencia Y Sociedad

Maria Alcántara Zarzuela

Adon Harris

Aldo Zullini

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Katharina Kerschan-Schindl

Journal of Geophysical Research

Indonesian Perspective

Faiz Marwan

Media & viestintä

Jenni Mäenpää

hassan khairy

Architectural Theory Review

Estudios: filosofía, historia, letras

Luis Del Castillo Múzquiz

Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations

Miroslav Kuchta

Physical Review E

Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology

Vega Widya Karisma

Microporous and Mesoporous Materials

Ewa Mijowska

2013 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets (CCEM)

Anthony Chronopoulos

Rienk Dekker

Optical Engineering

tatiana kukhtareva

U of T多伦多大学毕业证书办理成绩单购买 办毕业证多伦多大学文凭学位证书在读证明

澳洲假文凭办理Melb Uni毕业证书 买墨尔本大学毕业证成绩单,

catur aji pamungkas

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Jayakumar Rangasamy

Denise Merkle

Biochimica et biophysica acta

Matthias Mörgelin

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Global engagement
• At a glance
• Major trends
• Stories of change
• Major awards
• Investment partners
• Partnerships
• Board of Governors
• Our locations

OUTCOME STORY

National roadmap for food waste reduction in sri lanka.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has called for halving per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses ( Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] Target 12.3). Globally, state and non-state actors have introduced regulatory and incentive mechanisms to mitigate food waste at the local, national and regional levels.

Food waste occurs across the entire food supply chain. In most cases, stakeholders are not aware of the magnitude of the waste generated and believe that it is just part of ‘doing business’. This results in preventable socioeconomic and environmental costs .

About 22% of the total population of Sri Lanka does not have sufficient food to sustain a healthy life, and about 33% cannot afford a nutritious diet . For this reason, initiatives to prevent and reduce food waste have the potential to play a significant role in contributing to achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger). In addition to SDGs 12 and 2, reducing food waste also contributes to SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) . For example, a pproximately 87% of available freshwater is used for agriculture in Sri Lanka, so preventing food waste will help to reduce the pressure on available water resources and the demand for water in the food production system.

Where, why and how is food wasted?

In Sri Lanka, food waste represents between 50% and 76% of total municipal solid waste. The total food waste generated is estimated to be nearly 4,000 tons per day. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) has been working with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to ascertain why, how much and where food is being wasted by different sectors in Sri Lanka.

In 2020, a study conducted by IWMI and FAO, which focused on three major waste disposal centers in Sri Lanka’s Western Province, revealed that about 724 tons (55%) of the total waste collected in a day is food waste. The study further noted that the Colombo Municipal Council contributes to 42% of the total food waste transported to these disposal sites.

In a series of case studies , researchers from IWMI and FAO examined food waste at nine sites across five sectors: food services, wholesale markets, retail markets, caterers/institutional canteens and households. At each site, major sources of waste generation were identified and the wasted food was separated, weighed and categorized. The study revealed the volume of wasted food along with the causes of waste generation.

Strategies were identified to reduce food waste. For example, one major hotel , which had been wasting around one-third of the food it produced, was able to cut its daily food waste from 540 grams to 200 grams per customer.

Roadmap for food waste reduction

With the support of IWMI, FAO was able to develop a roadmap for preventing and reducing food waste in Sri Lanka. The National Roadmap on Urban Food Waste Prevention and Reduction was accepted and launched by the Ministry of Environment in 2021. The Ministry of Environment, as the leading authority, established a steering committee with key actors and players involved in the food waste system in order to operationalize the roadmap.

Significant progress was made in 2022 as a result of the roadmap, with the following initiatives set in motion:

• Posters, stickers and social media campaigns have been used to target school cafeterias with messages on reducing food waste.
• Informal food banks have been set up by civil society, religious groups and volunteers.
• The Ministry of Environment donated 12 refrigerators to food banks to address the problem of storing food that was rescued.
• A guideline has been drafted for food rescue operations which will be validated with stakeholders.
• Supermarkets and hotel chains have participated in food waste prevention and reduction training programs organized by the Ministry of Environment.
• Discussions have begun with famous local chefs to include food waste reduction messages in their cookery demonstration programs streamed on YouTube.
• The Ministry of Environment has started to develop proposals to seek funds from donors to implement the recommendations provided in the roadmap.

No time to waste

To ensure momentum is not lost, IWMI will be collaborating with the Waste Management Authority of the Western Province to improve resource recovery from food waste. This will include improving the efficiency of composting plants, conducting training in co-composting and introducing a Food Waste Management mobile app to link food waste with end users.

IWMI is also analyzing lessons learned from international best practices on food waste recovery and redistribution, with a view to developing related guidelines and partnership contract templates for countries such as Sri Lanka. FAO is developing a proposal to seek funds from the European Union to consolidate work that has already been done on implementation of the roadmap.

We gratefully acknowledge the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for its contributions to the Technical Cooperation Project with the Government of Sri Lanka.

Transformative Futures for Water Security regional dialogues

The Transformative Futures for Water Security initiative emerged as IWMI’s contribution to the United Nations 2023 Water Conference, which aims to shape global water management and policy through the Water Action Agenda. Over the past year, TFWS convened over 1,000 representatives from the private sector, water user and advocacy groups, research institutes, political entities and youth networks to identify critical gaps and opportunities in water research, policy and action. These represented 55 countries and 400 organizations. Through a unique process that included eight South-South regional dialogues and a global conference held in Cape Town, South Africa, eight high-ambition missions emerged, around which new TFWS stakeholders have rallied. The initiative uses a bottom-up approach, with youth acting as co-guardians of the process. The missions were part of IWMI’s commitment to the Water Action Agenda, aiming to catalyze and deliver innovation and action to strengthen water security.

United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP27)

The 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on November 6–18, 2022. It was the second consecutive Conference of the Parties (COP) to feature a Water and Climate Pavilion, which encouraged a focus on the links between water and climate change, and discussions on climate-resilient water management and solutions. During the event, IWMI collaborated with several organizations with the aim of encouraging policymakers to prioritize water as a critical resource impacted by climate change. These discussions were successful, as described by Vidhisha Samarasekara (Strategic Program Director – Water, Climate Change and Resilience, IWMI) in her op-ed for Scientific American titled How Water Finally Became a Climate Change Priority . She explained how the international agreement that resulted from the COP27 negotiations “solidified the idea that water is a valuable resource that can help society become more resilient to the impacts of climate change” – a huge win for global water security.

Ramsar Convention Conference of the Parties (COP14)

The Ramsar Convention Conference of the Parties (COP14) was held in Geneva, Switzerland, and Wuhan, China, on November 5–13, 2022, under the theme ‘Wetland Actions for People and Nature'. IWMI participated in the Geneva event with support from the CGIAR Initiative on NEXUS Gains. Delegates from IWMI highlighted the importance of the water–energy–food–ecosystems nexus, and as part of integrated food production systems. As a Ramsar International Organization Partner (IOP), IWMI contributed to side events and panel discussions covering topics such as wetlands as nature-based solutions for food production, wise use of wetlands in South Asia, restoration of mangrove and seagrass ecosystems, and challenges in protecting and conserving Ramsar sites. Along with other IOPs, IWMI called for recognition of the importance of wetlands in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Wetlands are hugely important and productive ecosystems which could reduce some of the impacts of climate change, and the multidisciplinary approaches implemented by initiatives such as NEXUS Gains are key to effectively managing these threatened landscapes.

IWMI’s global carbon footprint reduction program 

In accordance with the United Nations Global Compact, IWMI is calculating its global carbon footprint from 2020 to 2022. Taking 2019 as its base year, IWMI is working with sustainability consultancy EnKing International to convert operational data from each of its country offices into carbon emissions. This will facilitate the creation of a carbon emissions budgeting process for IWMI. IWMI is also developing its Sustainability Strategy and is working with an external auditor to validate the sustainability and data collection process. Finally, IWMI is supporting fellow CGIAR Research Centers, the International Rice Research Institute and WorldFish, with their enrolment in the United Nations Global Compact, and has briefed other CGIAR centers on the enrollment process.

Sixth Assessment Report of IPCC: Chapter 4 on water

The Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published in March 2022. The report, titled ‘ Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability ,’ features contributions from researchers at IWMI, including Aditi Mukherji, who was a coordinating lead author of Chapter 4. This chapter assesses the impacts of climate change on the hydrological cycle, the risks to humans and the environment, and discusses adaptation efforts. The report acknowledges the disproportionate impacts of water security on vulnerable populations, particularly in the Global South, and urges the development of adaptation policies that incorporate local, Indigenous and technical knowledge for climate resilience.

Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Chris Dickens (Principal Researcher, IWMI) worked with three independent groups that contributed to the inclusion of inland water in the draft targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15). Target 2 of the framework now states that by 2030, 30% of the world’s degraded terrestrial, inland water and coastal and marine ecosystems will be under effective restoration and be effectively conserved and managed. Target 3 states that at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water and coastal and marine areas should be effectively conserved and managed. This was a particular objective because inland water was initially omitted from the Targets. Chris contributed to UN-Water’s submission on inland water, drafting the proposal to include environmental flows as one of the Indicators of Target B on “Services Provided by Ecosystems” that will be used to monitor the Targets and Goals. The final selection of Indicators will only be finalized by 2025. IWMI also contributed to scientific and technical background papers that helped formulate and set priorities for the Global Biodiversity Framework, presented by a CGIAR consortium led by the Alliance.

Cultural Practices on Food Waste Generation: Sri Lankan Experiences

• College of Business, Government and Law

Research output : Contribution to conference › Abstract › peer-review

• Waste minimization
• Cultural practices
• regulations

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

• https://iswa2021.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/book-of-abstract-all.pdf Licence: In Copyright

Other files and links

• Conference Website - Program - Abstracts

Fingerprint

• Experience Medicine and Dentistry 100%
• Regulatory Mechanism Medicine and Dentistry 100%
• Awareness Medicine and Dentistry 100%
• Attitude Medicine and Dentistry 66%
• Hospital Medicine and Dentistry 66%
• Meal Medicine and Dentistry 66%
• Behavioral Change Medicine and Dentistry 66%
• Patient Medicine and Dentistry 33%

T1 - Cultural Practices on Food Waste Generation: Sri Lankan Experiences

AU - Damayanthi, Mahamadachchi Komalee Nadeeka

N2 - IntroductionThe World Bank estimated that waste generation in Sri Lanka will increase from 2.6 million tonnes in 2016 to 3.7 million tonnes by 2050. The Government collects only 27% of the daily waste generation. Great majority of both collected and uncollected waste is disposed of using inappropriate methods such as burning or open dumping. Therefore, waste minimization and prevention are important in Sri Lanka. this paper examines how public attitudes, behaviour and cultural practice influence waste generation, minimizing and prevention in Sri Lanka.MethodThis qualitative research is based on both primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews of 30 participants selected from Central, Provincial and Local governments, researchers, and recyclers. Field data was collected from November 2019 to January 2020 in Sri Lanka. NVIVO software was used to analyse data.Key findingsCultural practices, public attitudes and behaviour contribute considerably to increased waste generation. Awareness programmes, behavioural changes from childhood, and inhouse rules and regulations for institutions will help to minimize waste generation.DiscussionCultural practices such as bringing home made meals when visiting patients at hospitals,preparing extra food for every meal in case of unexpected visitors, and feeling shy to serve food 2-3 times at public places or events such as weddings and almsgiving were found to cause increased waste generation. For example, Kandy General Hospital disposes of about four tonnes of food a day. However, awareness and in-house regulations of waste generation at public places/institutions such as fine for food waste at buffet cause minimize waste generation. As revealed through interviews a few private companies and government institutions reached nearly zero waste through such practices.ConclusionGovernment, private sector, and individuals can co-operate to minimize waste generation and prevention through awareness programs, in-house regulations and behavioural changes.

AB - IntroductionThe World Bank estimated that waste generation in Sri Lanka will increase from 2.6 million tonnes in 2016 to 3.7 million tonnes by 2050. The Government collects only 27% of the daily waste generation. Great majority of both collected and uncollected waste is disposed of using inappropriate methods such as burning or open dumping. Therefore, waste minimization and prevention are important in Sri Lanka. this paper examines how public attitudes, behaviour and cultural practice influence waste generation, minimizing and prevention in Sri Lanka.MethodThis qualitative research is based on both primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews of 30 participants selected from Central, Provincial and Local governments, researchers, and recyclers. Field data was collected from November 2019 to January 2020 in Sri Lanka. NVIVO software was used to analyse data.Key findingsCultural practices, public attitudes and behaviour contribute considerably to increased waste generation. Awareness programmes, behavioural changes from childhood, and inhouse rules and regulations for institutions will help to minimize waste generation.DiscussionCultural practices such as bringing home made meals when visiting patients at hospitals,preparing extra food for every meal in case of unexpected visitors, and feeling shy to serve food 2-3 times at public places or events such as weddings and almsgiving were found to cause increased waste generation. For example, Kandy General Hospital disposes of about four tonnes of food a day. However, awareness and in-house regulations of waste generation at public places/institutions such as fine for food waste at buffet cause minimize waste generation. As revealed through interviews a few private companies and government institutions reached nearly zero waste through such practices.ConclusionGovernment, private sector, and individuals can co-operate to minimize waste generation and prevention through awareness programs, in-house regulations and behavioural changes.

KW - Waste minimization

KW - behaviour

KW - Sri Lanka

KW - Cultural practices

KW - regulations

UR - https://iswa2021.com/scientific-programme/

M3 - Abstract

T2 - ISWA World Congress-2021

Y2 - 4 October 2021 through 7 October 2021

Agricultural Research for Sustainable Food Systems in Sri Lanka

Volume 1: A Historical Perspective

• © 2020
• Buddhi Marambe 0 ,
• Jeevika Weerahewa 1 ,
• Warshi S. Dandeniya 2

Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Department of soil science, faculty of agriculture, university of peradeniya, peradeniya, sri lanka.

• Presents the state of the art of conducting agricultural research
• Illustrates the current challenges facing agriculture sector of Sri Lanka
• Presents an agenda for future research to resolve the problems in agriculture sector

7958 Accesses

21 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (17 chapters)

Front matter, food systems in sri lanka: components, evolution, challenges and opportunities.

• Jeevika Weerahewa, Warshi S. Dandeniya, Buddhi Marambe

Nutrition Transition in Sri Lanka: A Meta-Analysis of the Nutrition Profile

• Jeevika Weerahewa, Pradeepa Korale-Gedara, Chatura Sewwandi Wijetunga

Cascaded Tank-Village System: Present Status and Prospects

• P. B. Dharmasena

Soil Survey, Classification and Mapping in Sri Lanka: Past, Present and Future

• Udaya W. A. Vitharana, Ranjith B. Mapa

Milestones in the History of Rice Improvement in Sri Lanka

• M. P. Dhanapala

Vegetable Breeding in Sri Lanka in Retrospect

• H. Hemal Fonseka

Genetic Improvement for Sustainability of Coconut Production: The Sri Lankan Experience

• S. A. C. N. Perera

Breaking the Mold: Pave the Way for Future Cereals

• Dimanthi Jayatilake, Venura Herath

Recent Developments in Vegetable Production Technologies in Sri Lanka

• W. A. P. Weerakkody, S. M. M. R. Mawalagedera

Input Intensification in Food Crops Production and Food Security

• Buddhi Marambe, S. S. B. D. G. Jayawardena, W. M. W. Weerakoon, Hemantha Wijewardena

A Cross Section of Century-Long Experiences in Entomological Research in Crop Sectors: Directions for Future Research

• K. S. Hemachandra

Animal Feed Production in Sri Lanka: Past Present and Future

• S. Premarathne, K. Samarasinghe

Livestock and Poultry to Assure Sustainability in the Food System

• G. L. L. P. Silva, C. M. B. Dematawewa

Fisheries Sector Contribution for Sustainable Food System: Past, Present, and Future

• Saman Athauda, Nimal Chandraratna

Evolution of Agricultural Extension System in Sri Lanka

• C. Sivayoganathan

Performance and Potential of Agricultural Insurance: Global and Sri Lankan Perspectives

• D. V. Pahan Prasada

Agricultural Research for Sustainable Food Systems: Recommendations with Special Reference to Sri Lanka

• Buddhi Marambe, Warshi S. Dandeniya, Jeevika Weerahewa
• Agriculture
• Crop and animal production
• Agri-business management
• Socio-economic development
• Environment

About this book

A food system comprises the entire range of actors and interlinked activities related to food production, processing, distribution, marketing and trade, preparation, consumption, and disposal. When a food system operates without compromising the needs of future generations, it is considered to be a “Sustainable Food System.” The present-day food systems in Sri Lanka are diverse, and the natural and physical environment, infrastructure, institutions, society and culture, and policies and regulations within which the food systems operate, as well as the technologies employed, have shaped their outcomes.

Agricultural research is a key factor in terms of innovation and technological advances . Innovation has been the main driver of food systems’ transformation over the past few decades and will be critical to addressing the needs of a rapidly growing population in a context of climate change and scarcity of natural resources. In addition, agricultural research must help meet the rising demand for food at affordable prices.

Comprising 17 chapters written by specialist(s) in their respective subject-areas, this Contributed Volume on “Agricultural Research for Sustainable Food Systems in Sri Lanka: A Historical Perspective” shares the scientific knowledge accumulated by the National Agricultural Research System of Sri Lanka, including universities, and offers recommendations on how to make food systems more sustainable in order to address the current needs of Sri Lankan society. It presents perspectives on four key thematic areas, namely: (i) Crop and animal production, management, and improvement, (ii) Agro-product processing technologies, (iii) Natural resource management, and (iv) Socio-economic development and agri-business management. 

Editors and Affiliations

Buddhi Marambe

Jeevika Weerahewa

Warshi S. Dandeniya

About the editors

Dr. Buddhi Marambe is a Senior Professor at the Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. He received his B.Sc. (Agriculture) from the University of Peradeniya, and his M.Agr. and D.Agr. degrees (Plant Environmental Sciences) from Hiroshima University, Japan. His main research focuses are on Weed Science, Climate Change and Food Security. Prof. Marambe is currently the President of the Weed Science Society of Sri Lanka (WSSSL), Chairman of the National Invasive Species Specialist Group (NISSG) and Chairman of the National Experts Committee on Climate Change Adaptation (NECCCA). He has also served as a consultant on agriculture-related issues to the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF).

Dr. Jeevika Weerahew a is a Professor of Agricultural Economics at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. She holds B.Sc. and M.Phil. degrees in Agriculture from the University of Peradeniya, and a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from the University of Guleph, Canada. Her primary research area is Agricultural Policy Analysis. She has served as president of the Sri Lankan Agricultural Economics Association, a Collaborator of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a Hewlett Fellow of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, and a Fellow of the Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.

Dr. Warshi Dandeniya  is a Senior Lecturer and presently the Head of the Department of Soil Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. She received her B.Sc. and M.Phil. degrees in Agriculture from the University of Peradeniya, and her Ph.D. in Soil Science from Cornell University, USA. Her expertise is in soil microbial ecology, and her research work focuses on investigating the impacts of agricultural practices on soil biodiversity, and on improving nutrient management in cropping systems using microorganisms. Dr. Dandeniya is a member of the FAO/WHO Roster of Experts for Antimicrobial Resistance and a Young Affiliate of The World Academy of Science (TWAS). She is currently Vice-President of the Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Agricultural Research for Sustainable Food Systems in Sri Lanka

Book Subtitle : Volume 1: A Historical Perspective

Editors : Buddhi Marambe, Jeevika Weerahewa, Warshi S. Dandeniya

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2152-2

Publisher : Springer Singapore

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences , Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-15-2151-5 Published: 31 March 2020

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-15-2154-6 Published: 31 March 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-981-15-2152-2 Published: 30 March 2020

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XIX, 394

Number of Illustrations : 3 b/w illustrations, 60 illustrations in colour

Topics : Agriculture , Agricultural Economics , Natural Resource and Energy Economics , Food Science , Sustainable Development

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research