Sri Lanka’s food security is at a crossroads. One in four households struggle with food insecurity, while Cyclone Ditwah left 2.2 million people affected — nearly 10 per cent of the population. Rising import dependence, inflation, and global supply shocks compound the crisis. As climate disasters intensify, resilience is tested daily.
On Kaleidoscope, we posed some timely questions on Sri Lanka’s food future to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Representative for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Vimlendra Sharan.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Does Sri Lanka have a food security problem?
Yes and no. Sri Lanka is very dependent on its two cropping seasons, so, in the years that we produce enough, we have food, while in the years when we have external shocks and the production is hampered, issues of food security do crop up, so it’s very contextual depending on how the year has played out.
Sri Lanka’s food security snapshot shows above average cereal production but rising import needs, how sustainable is it to keep this balance?
Food security has to be viewed through two lenses: agriculture and the fiscal space. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with imports — not every country is self-sufficient in food. Sri Lanka produces adequate cereals in a good year, but, in a bad year, due to the climate or other external shocks, we have to rely on imports. At that point, the Government’s fiscal capacity to import food becomes critical. So, it’s really an interplay between production on the agriculture side and the availability of US$ on the fiscal side. Ideally, food security should be based on self-sufficiency, but, if not, we must at least have sufficient resources to import when needed.
Ditwah affected 2.2 million people. How exposed are we to future climate shocks which would disrupt food security?
Extremely. We shouldn’t downplay the climate impact on Sri Lankan agriculture. Whether it be flood or drought, what we are seeing is an increased intensity and a very high level of recurrence. Sri Lanka has to be ready and has to adapt itself, become more resilient to face these onslaughts. Coupled with this is also the fact of external shocks like what we are seeing today, when fertiliser imports or your fuel imports get impacted by factors which are just not under your control. These things will be very, very crucial for Sri Lankan agriculture in the future.
World Food Programme surveys found that there were household vulnerabilities post-Ditwah. What do these findings actually say about resilience at the community level?
We have to distinguish between recovery and resilience. I’ll give a very short example: you have a mud house, and, when the flood comes, the house gets washed away. If you rebuild a mud house, that's recovery, but if you rebuild a concrete cement structure, that's resilience. So, just coming back to where you started from is not resilience.
As we come out of Ditwah, we have to understand that rebuilding Sri Lankan agriculture must focus on what is going to come, not what has already happened. And, that difference must be very clearly understood. We have to understand how the climate is playing out. We have to understand how the supply shocks are going to play out in the world market, and then build our own self to meet those challenges.
Meanwhile, 26 per cent of our population is still food insecure. What immediate interventions do you think we should be taking to reduce that insecurity?
Luckily, for Sri Lanka, it’s not a situation where somebody is dying of starvation. Everybody has food to eat, but, not everybody has an adequate amount of food. The Sri Lankan plate has changed – where the Sri Lankan family would be having three greens and one non-veg may be every day, you find that changing to once a week or twice a week because of these problems that they are facing. Immediate intervention in a situation where there is no food obviously is to provide actual food.
But, my personal take is always to provide means to better production. If a farmer has suffered due to a cyclone, drought or flood, we should be providing fertiliser and seed, for the farmer to get back to farming. If one kg of rice is given to you, that will be consumed within a few days. But, one kg of seed will go on to produce 10 kg of rice. And, that is the equation that we have to play. It has to be a very nuanced and a very thought out intervention. In an area of severe food deficiency, we have to provide food immediately. People can’t be left to starve. But, in areas where people are managing, we should look at enhancing agriculture.
How do global headwinds like inflation or supply chain disruptions like we've been seeing with the Middle East war impact Sri Lanka’s food shortages?
In Sri Lanka, paddy is the main cereal. The Maha cultivation season produces paddy which should cater to, in a good year, about eight months, and the Yala season produces for six months. You have about 14 months of paddy in a normal year, with just about two months to play around with.
In a bad year, when there are supply shocks, as has happened in 2026, you will face a situation where Maha will give you five or six months and Yala will give you may be just two to three months, which means that you have gone into a shortage straightaway without a buffer stock. To my mind, this is one of the biggest weaknesses that we have in our food security system in Sri Lanka.
India has a buffer stock system in terms of the Food Corporation of India and the public distribution system. There is no buffer in this country. The entire cereal production is year to year, season to season. If one season falters, there is a problem in the country. So, this needs to be looked into as a policy intervention.
What role does nutrition play in that context?
Nutrition is central. You may have enough cereals and enough calories, but, that’s not nutrition. It is not just important to eat enough, but it’s important to eat right. We understand fully well that a nutritious plate is about 2.5 or three times costlier than a normal plate. But, that is the investment which a society has to make to ensure that its people get adequate nutrition.
The economic cost of malnutrition, whether it be obesity or micronutrient deficiency or just the shortage of food or calories, is immense. A child who grows up stunted is a cost to the economy because he/she is not able to give his/her full potential back to the economy. We can’t take nutrition as a five-day or 10-day school programme, although these are extremely important. We need to increase coverage and also ensure that there’s no break in this programme. Consistent and good nutritious meals have to be given to children, to lactating mothers and adults, so that the society as a whole stays healthy and nutritious.
Sri Lanka – like most countries – is more reactive than proactive. Are the current recovery measures adequate, and what more needs to be put in place if we are to move from emergency relief to long term resilience?
I would first say that we have to work very hard on developing an anticipatory action protocol, and our advisories have to be impact-driven. Today, we can predict a cyclone or heavy rainfall, but, to the farmer, it means very little because we are not giving proper, actionable guidance. We are not telling them what will happen, which areas will be affected, or what they should do. That gap is costing us, and building resilience must start there — with clear, practical advance warnings.
From there, we move into better research, flood-tolerant seed varieties, diversification within and beyond agriculture, and value addition. These are all critical steps in strengthening resilience.
At the same time, we must recognise that resilience has limits. Like a rubber band, it can only stretch so far unless the capacity is continuously strengthened. This is therefore a long-term, consistent effort — from policy to implementation — to make agriculture more resilient.
Whether it’s the fishermen or the farmer, its rural livelihoods really. How vulnerable are they when it comes to repeated climate shocks?
Extremely. Climate shocks are here to stay, and they will only become more frequent and intense. While we cannot control the climate, we can control how we respond to it. The focus must therefore be on strengthening resilience in practical ways.
For instance, there has been a collaboration with the Fisheries Department to develop an unsinkable boat and improve hull designs for multi-day fishing vessels, resulting in about 30 per cent fuel savings. These are examples of adaptation in action. However, such initiatives remain at the pilot stage. Scaling them up is ultimately the responsibility of the Government, and that is not always straightforward given fiscal and structural constraints.
There is awareness within the system, but, translating that into timely action remains a challenge. Bridging that gap — between knowledge and implementation — is critical, and it is something that needs to happen much faster.
What policy shifts are necessary to ensure that we strengthen our local production and maybe reduce our import dependence?
Taking the example of paddy again, across the country, paddy is grown in different agro-climatic zones, but productivity varies. We should focus cultivation in areas where yields are high and release less productive land — such as Western wetlands — for other crops. This kind of crop diversification can be done without reducing the overall output, by producing the same volume on a smaller, more efficient land area.
At the same time, value addition remains very low and must be strengthened, with farmers moving further up the value chain. Diversification beyond agriculture is also limited and should be encouraged — for instance, integrating dairy so that farmers have an alternative income if crops fail.
Policy support is key. Measures that enable adaptation to climate and external shocks — such as subsidised loans for more efficient fishing boats or support for resilient farming practices — can make a significant difference. These are the kinds of policy shifts needed to help farmers and fishers become more resilient and ensure that the economy continues to function despite external pressures.
Global and climate pressures are going to be more the rule than the exception. What would Sri Lanka’s five-year outlook for food security be?
We should not be complacent. Sri Lanka may produce enough cereals in good years, but, production is highly seasonal, and even a single shock can disrupt that balance. What is needed is a dynamic policy that responds quickly to production signals, manages imports effectively and builds a strong buffer stock system to handle emergencies.
While global conditions have been relatively stable in recent years, ongoing disruptions — particularly around fuel and fertiliser — pose risks across the region. If multiple countries are affected at once, external support becomes uncertain. That is why Sri Lanka must focus on strengthening its own systems. Planning can’t be short-term; it must look ahead 10–15 years to build real resilience.
The writer is the host, director, and co-producer of the weekly digital programme ‘Kaleidoscope with Savithri Rodrigo’ which can be viewed on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. She has over three decades of experience in print, electronic, and social media
---------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication