- By Sunil Kannangara, former Government Agent of Colombo, Ratnapura and Ampara
Sri Lanka paddy farmers face falling prices, weak state purchasing, high production costs and mounting losses as the Yala harvest begins.
The struggle facing Sri Lanka paddy farmers may have temporarily faded from public attention after the Negombo prison incident, but it has not disappeared.
The confrontation between the Government and paddy farmers is likely to return to centre stage. Agriculture Minister Lal Kantha appears unable to prevent the dispute from resurfacing.
Deputy Agriculture Minister Namal Karunaratne may have received his position because of his earlier role as a rural leader within the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna, or People’s United Front.
Before becoming Deputy Minister, Karunaratne presented himself as someone who understood paddy cultivation and the concerns of farmers. At the time, few imagined that farmers would later accuse him of distancing himself from them.
The first complaints involved delays in receiving fertiliser subsidies. Later, farmers faced a more serious problem. They could not sell the paddy they had retained from the Maha season at a reasonable market price.
Traditionally, farmers do not sell their entire harvest immediately. They keep a portion for household consumption and emergency expenses until the next harvest.
A farmer needing money for the weekly market may tie a bundle of paddy to a bicycle and take it to a purchasing centre. During a sudden illness, a family may sell two or three bundles to cover treatment costs. A farmer may also sell a bundle to buy a hoe or meet another urgent expense.
Keeping paddy at home for such needs remains a long-established practice.
During the last Maha harvest, market prices were unusually high. As a result, many farmers kept more paddy than usual.
Their current problem is that market prices have fallen sharply from the levels seen during that harvest. The demand for a Government-guaranteed purchasing price therefore moved to the centre of the farmers’ campaign.
Government Dismissed Sri Lanka Paddy Farmers’ Concerns
Government authorities did not treat these demands with sufficient seriousness.
Instead, officials responded through the media with what farmers regarded as their familiar arrogance. They described protesting cultivators as middlemen who had bought paddy cheaply.
Officials also claimed that the Government had completed its Maha season purchasing programme. Some dismissed the farmers’ demands as an Opposition conspiracy.
Farmers then began directing their anger at Agriculture Minister Lal Kantha. Much of that anger followed his repeated use of what cultivators described as “new minister stories.”
Farmers eventually took to the streets. They argued that the decline in paddy prices resulted partly from the Trade Ministry allowing large-scale rice imports.
The Government permitted substantial rice imports under the stated objective of controlling the price of Keeri Samba. That decision gave at least some foundation to the farmers’ argument that imports had affected the local market.
The Government then launched a counter-narrative.
Officials claimed that successful Government policies had produced a large Maha harvest and created a surplus of paddy.
Well-known rice trader B. Siriwardena repeatedly promoted this explanation.
Agriculture Minister Lal Kantha had previously spoken proudly about opening the second White Arailway warehouse and clearing old stocks from storage. However, he became noticeably quiet when discussion turned to the alleged surplus.
Farmers argue that the surplus narrative will disappear once the Government redirects existing stocks and imported rice towards other uses.
Officials had suggested using excess rice for purposes such as animal feed and beer production. They presented these proposals as ways to broaden the market and absorb the surplus.
The next Government response was to announce the opening of warehouses for purchasing the Yala harvest.
Authorities publicly stated that storage facilities in Ampara, where harvesting is underway, would open for Government purchases.
However, farmers say the Government has not leased enough warehouse space to buy paddy on the necessary scale.
A ceremonial purchasing programme began at the Palankadawara storage facility in Ampara. Yet, according to farmers, even that warehouse has not been fully leased.
Several other storage facilities in the district reportedly remain damaged by old roof leaks.
At the same time, claims have emerged that senior officials have been sent to engage with farmers in an effort to contain the agitation.
Yala Harvest Begins While the Price Dispute Remains
The Yala harvest has now started amid this unresolved situation.
Authorities say Government storage facilities will begin purchasing paddy to address the price problem during the season.
Farmers who protested because they could not sell their Maha stocks will soon return to their fields. Over the next month and a half, many will become occupied with harvesting the Yala crop.
Government officials may then declare that the farmers’ problem has been solved because the demonstrations have quietened.
However, a temporary decline in protests would not mean that the underlying crisis has ended.
The Trade Minister recently announced that large-scale rice millers, who buy the largest share of paddy in the market, had agreed to purchase at the Government price.
A major rice producer later confirmed this publicly.
“We will buy the paddy brought to us at Rs. 120 per kilo,” he told the media.
The wording matters.
Government officials may argue that private buyers purchasing paddy at Rs. 120 per kilogram are complying with the guaranteed price. Yet farmers must first transport their produce to those mills.
A cultivator in Ampara, Batticaloa, Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu or Mannar may have to load bundles onto trucks and carry them to a major rice mill in Polonnaruwa.
The Government may claim that it has created a guaranteed market. In practice, however, transport costs and logistical barriers could make that option unrealistic.
An old story explains the problem.
A farmer once hired a worker to remove a large rock from his field. The farmer fed the worker meat and rice for an entire month.
When a supervisor arrived to inspect the job, the rock had not moved. The worker explained that the farmer had hired him to carry the rock away, not to lift it.
Private millers may respond in much the same way.
They can say they are prepared to buy paddy at the announced price, but farmers must bring it to them. The burden of transport remains with the cultivator.
The Government may therefore tell the media that private millers have agreed to buy every kilogram. Farmers, however, will quickly understand that the arrangement is impractical.
Ampara Farmers Report Prices Far Below Rs. 120
Over the past several days, I discussed current paddy prices with farmers in Ampara, where harvesting is already underway.
I spoke with cultivators from Sammanture, Ruhunugama and Siyashilawewa.
Sammanture has many farmers cultivating five, 10, 20 or even 25 acres.
The situation differs in Ruhunugama and Siyashilawewa. In those areas, the maximum land cultivated by some individual farmers may be only half an acre.
Many cultivate small holdings of one and a half or two acres.
According to their accounts, the current paddy price in the area stands at around Rs. 90 per kilogram.
A farmer from Sammanture said he recently sold a 65.5-kilogram bundle of leftover Maha paddy for Rs. 6,500. That equals roughly Rs. 99 to Rs. 100 per kilogram.
He added that a bundle of older Maha paddy has now risen to approximately Rs. 7,000. That works out at around Rs. 107 per kilogram.
Farmers have already completed parts of the Yala harvest in areas such as Pothuvil and Akkarapattu.
A bundle of newly harvested paddy sells for approximately Rs. 5,500. This equals about Rs. 84 per kilogram.
These figures remain well below the Government’s stated price of Rs. 120.
Sammanture farmers said cultivating one acre during the current season cost approximately Rs. 155,000.
The average yield from one acre in Sammanture is about 30 bundles, or roughly 1,950 kilograms.
In Ruhunugama, the total cost per acre reaches around Rs. 163,000. The maximum yield is about 25 bundles, or 1,625 kilograms.
In Siyashilawewa, cultivation costs exceed Rs. 165,000 per acre. The maximum yield also stands at around 25 bundles, or 1,625 kilograms.
Several farmers from Ruhunugama and Siyashilawewa said they had observed a major decline in yields during this Yala season.
According to them, the average yield may fall to about 20 bundles per acre.
One Farmer’s Figures Reveal the Depth of the Loss
A.G. Sirisena of Siyashilawewa cultivates 3.5 acres of paddy.
He expects to harvest fewer than 70 bundles this season.
Normally, he would reserve 20 bundles for his family’s food and sell the remaining 50 bundles at the Government price.
Under current conditions, however, his total earnings could amount to only around Rs. 360,000.
He has spent more than Rs. 550,000 cultivating the 3.5 acres.
Sirisena therefore expects a serious financial loss.
Even under the most optimistic estimate, he could sell only 60 bundles. At the Government price, that would produce an income of about Rs. 522,000.
He receives Rs. 42,000 in fertiliser assistance for the 3.5 acres.
Adding that subsidy would raise his total income to approximately Rs. 564,000.
The public can judge whether this represents a viable return.
A farmer spends more than Rs. 550,000 cultivating 3.5 acres. Even after receiving the subsidy, his total income may reach only Rs. 564,000.
That leaves almost no meaningful return for months of labour, risk and uncertainty.
These numbers show why the Government’s Rs. 120 per kilogram price may still be inadequate.
They also show why farmers protest.
They are not taking to the streets on behalf of middlemen or because the Opposition instructed them to do so.
They are protesting because they face a genuine economic problem.
Higher Paddy Prices Could Hurt Consumers
Increasing the paddy price alone would create another problem.
Rice prices would rise, placing a heavier burden on consumers.
The Government should therefore focus on reducing production costs for farmers rather than relying only on a higher guaranteed price.
Fertiliser remains the largest single cost in paddy cultivation. It accounts for more than one-third of total production expenses.
Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fuel also create substantial costs.
At present, the Government fertiliser subsidy covers only around 20% of the fertiliser cost per acre.
The Government should consider several alternatives.
It could raise the subsidy to 50%. It could reduce fertiliser prices by at least half.
Authorities should also lower fuel prices and impose stricter controls on the quality of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides sold in the market.
Low-quality agricultural chemicals increase costs while reducing yields. Effective regulation would therefore protect both farmers and national food production.
Consumers must also recognise the economic reality.
In a country experiencing annual inflation of 5%, rice prices cannot remain permanently unchanged.
Farmers also face inflation. Their fertiliser, fuel, labour, transport and chemical costs continue to rise.
A rigid attempt to control rice prices without lowering production expenses transfers the burden directly to the producer.
The Government cannot expect farmers to absorb inflation indefinitely while selling their harvest at prices that barely cover costs.
Government Must Address the Real Cost of Farming
The current conflict involving Sri Lanka paddy farmers cannot be solved through media statements, ceremonial warehouse openings or accusations against the Opposition.
Nor can it be resolved by announcing a guaranteed price that farmers cannot practically access.
The Government must ensure that purchasing centres operate where farmers live. It must provide enough storage and repair damaged warehouses.
Authorities must also make purchasing procedures transparent and accessible.
Most importantly, the Government must reduce production costs.
Farmers need adequate fertiliser support, affordable fuel, reliable agricultural inputs and protection from poor-quality chemicals.
The State must also recognise regional differences in yield, land size, transport costs and access to buyers.
A farmer cultivating 25 acres in Sammanture does not face exactly the same conditions as a smallholder cultivating two acres in Ruhunugama or Siyashilawewa.
However, both face the same central threat. Their income may not cover the cost of production.
Unless the Government addresses that imbalance, farmers will continue to lose confidence in official promises.
They will also continue to return to the streets.
The protests are not simply about one season or one price.
They reflect a deeper crisis in which farmers carry rising costs while consumers face pressure for cheaper rice. Government policy must balance both sides.
That balance will not come from blaming farmers, describing them as middlemen or dismissing their demands as political conspiracies.
It requires realistic purchasing systems, lower production costs and a national policy that protects both food producers and consumers.
Otherwise, even God will not be able to stop farmers from taking to the streets.
