Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector is yet to implement an integrated digital infrastructure system. With data-backed cultivation emerging as an essential step, the country’s agricultural sector faces many data and digitalisation gaps.
In an interview with The Sunday Morning Business, Sri Lanka Agripreneurs’ Forum (SLAF) Honorary Secretary Dr. Selvanathan Anojan noted that the absence of a national digital agri-ecosystem and a disconnect between technical and agricultural expertise were key barriers to progress.
He further highlighted the need for a national steering committee and a unified data architecture to optimise benefits for all stakeholders involved.
Following are excerpts:
How does Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector currently use data and digital tools, and where is adoption weakest?
In any developed country, there is typically a national agri Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platform at a macro level. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka lacks such a platform. A national agri ERP would manage end-to-end operations where every stakeholder has a specific role, connecting them directly or indirectly to the business.
When we look at the macro picture, these stakeholders include farmers, agricultural instructors, certification bodies, and aggregators. Then there is the market, including wholesalers, retailers, and buyers who process and sell the produce. We also have logistics providers, agro-input suppliers for fertiliser and chemicals, insurance providers, and the financial institutions that lend to farmers. For an ecosystem to leverage technology, all these verticals must be linked.
Currently, we do not have a national platform of this nature. While the SLAF and a private organisation based in Sri Lanka began developing one in 2021, which is nearing completion and is expected to be launched in April, it remains a private initiative. Because we lack such coordination, stakeholders create their own isolated platforms for specific activities, but these are not interconnected. Hence, the benefits do not reach the majority of the ecosystem.
We have seen Government attempts, such as the ‘GeoGoviya’ platform designed to map paddy farms. However, in Government structures, when officials are transferred, these projects tend to fail. Also we frequently hear bureaucrats discuss digitalisation and agricultural revolutions, but these efforts are usually confined to narrow windows rather than connecting the entire stakeholder chain.
Building a comprehensive ERP platform is a massive task, but it is necessary for food security. It allows us to assess demand and supply, which helps stabilise prices.
Currently, the sector uses digital tools in a very minimal way. As for where adoption is weakest, many assume it is the farmers. However, from my experience, if there is a clear, meaningful value proposition, farmers would be the first to adapt. This transformation depends entirely on the value provided to the user.
How can data-driven, digitally supported models support market access and expansion for farmers?
This is a key requirement for the entire region. Technology for an ecosystem provides a level of efficiency that is not humanly possible.
In agriculture, data-driven models solve massive logistical inefficiencies. For instance, at economic centres like Dambulla, farmers from other provinces bring their produce to sell. Buyers also travel there from long distances. I have seen cases where a farmer from Ampara transports produce over 200 km to the Dambulla Economic Centre, where another buyer purchases it and transports it back to the Ampara region.
If we had data insights and a platform to facilitate these connections, even for a fee, we could eliminate these non-value-adding costs. This unnecessary travel increases expenses for the farmer and the buyer while reducing the quality of the produce due to handling and transport time. By using data to match supply with local demand, we can reduce post-harvest losses and make the entire supply chain more efficient.
There is a debate about the role of middlemen in agriculture. How does a data-driven approach change that dynamic?
The goal of technology is not necessarily to eliminate the middleman, as coexistence is essential for the ecosystem. While some may exploit their position for a higher margin, the solution is to repurpose these stakeholders for better value addition. Many of these individuals have the capital to invest.
Data is the tool that reveals possibilities. To get that data, however, we must capture it efficiently since manual data entry is prone to human error and inefficiency. When you replicate these systems across the country, you create a generalised platform that provides massive leverage.
With data, we can also move more towards real-time prices without misinformation as data speaks the truth, and when decisions are backed by it, the entire chain aligns. Proper data utilisation can lead to a ‘win-win-win’ situation for all stakeholders involved.
Why does Sri Lanka lack the willingness to implement a proper national data-driven digital system, and what is holding the country back?
I wouldn’t say there is a lack of willingness, as most people support moving towards a digital, data-driven system. However, there is a gap between acknowledging a good idea and actually adopting it. The real problem lies in the disconnect between knowledge and practical know-how.
In Sri Lanka, the agricultural workforce and the tech workforce operate in silos. While many involved at the administrative level may have theoretical knowledge, they lack the resources to merge that knowledge with technology practically.
On the other side, we have talented tech entrepreneurs who develop platforms without ever stepping onto a farm, building systems based on hypotheses or assumptions. I have seen many tech startups pitch ideas in accelerator programmes that use impressive technology but fail to address the actual ground-level problem.
Since 2019, the SLAF has lobbied for a national agriculture platform. Even if you bring agriculture and tech people together, you still need a third element – business sense. Then, there is the legal complexity. For a bank to lend through a platform using smart contracts, you must understand the legalities of land ownership. Without addressing these business and legal realities, there wouldn’t be proper success.
You mentioned that creating a national agri platform is a massive task. Beyond the technology itself, what are the specific elements required to make such a system functional and user-friendly?
Currently, there is no seamless collection or consolidation of data. To utilise data effectively, it must be on a single architecture.
To develop such a platform, you need a high level of theoretical and practical agricultural knowledge, as well as advanced technical know-how. Most importantly, the user experience must be the priority. A sophisticated system is useless if it isn’t user-friendly.
The ecosystem must bring together multiple elements, including agriculture, technology, finance, logistics, traceability, marketing and branding, a strong legal framework for procurement and administration, and a digital presence to build trust.
Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has not yet committed the necessary effort to integrate these areas seamlessly. It is not about pointing fingers at anyone, but about the scale of effort required for this kind of integration.
Since this issue pertains to data and innovation, does Sri Lanka have a problem of underinvesting in agricultural R&D?
Interestingly, the agriculture sector likely has the highest number of PhDs in the country. There is no shortage of new knowledge being created.
However, my view is that all research should be commercial research. As a small country, we cannot afford to conduct academic research just for the sake of publication. If we cannot commercialise it ourselves, we should at least try to patent it to sell to those who can.
Funding exists, and while I agree that the allocation could be higher, we first need to justify the use of existing funds. To ensure commercial viability, these research projects or committees should have at least 50% private sector participation.
We have excellent resources, from undergraduates to PhD candidates. Every research investment must have a defined objective for commercialisation or economic success.
What structural policy changes are required moving forward, especially to support a digitally integrated agri-ecosystem?
Digitalisation is number one, since transparency is the first requirement. A national agri ERP must be integrated into the sector for it to truly improve. However, if we look at the macro picture, we should focus on a few strategic changes.
As of now, Sri Lanka’s agricultural administration is very fragmented. There are roughly 87 different departments and institutions managing various verticals – fisheries, agrarian development, tea, rubber, coconut, and cinnamon, to name a few. It is nearly impossible to proceed with a strategy with such a cluttered structure. While we cannot simply dissolve these institutions and displace employees, we can implement a national agriculture steering committee to establish a unified nature.
Such a committee should be established by the State but largely driven by the private sector, as the masses would be more receptive to any decisions from such a committee. Its composition could include participation of around 70% from the private sector and 30% from the public sector; this would ensure balance.
It is also important to understand what the private sector is, as it is not just a club for big players or large conglomerates. To me, the smallest unit of the private sector is the individual farmer who risks their own capital, endures issues, and manages their own profit and loss. The committee should also include Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and community leaders who understand the ground realities of the field. Such decisions will be for the people, by the people.
The problem with our current model is that policies are mostly written by bureaucrats who take no personal financial risk, yet their decisions dictate whether those who do take risks will thrive on it or die on it.
Hence, from a structural point of view, there should be a national committee of no more than 12 members to prevent the group from becoming unproductive. This alone would solve a large portion of our problems because it would ensure that funds are allocated based on actual needs based on proper information rather than bureaucratic assumptions.
Other than administrative changes, what are the other infrastructure improvements required by the sector?
We need to reconsider how we approach agricultural sustainability and infrastructure. Over the years, many NGOs and international donors, from the World Bank to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), have provided equipment and funding to Government and private organisations. While well intentioned, these efforts haven’t resulted in sustainable, public-owned infrastructure development.
We should look at models like the kibbutzim in Israel or farm cooperatives in Japan. In these systems, the community takes ownership of the venture’s sustainability. We need to move away from the idea that supporting a few large firms will eventually trickle down to the bottom. Instead, we should invest in public infrastructure that is managed and sustained by the public, governed by protocols and a clear code of conduct.
Also, we must optimise our logistics. Our railway network is a massive, underutilised asset. Currently, there are a countless number of lorries travelling long distances from Jaffna or Anuradhapura to Colombo.
Changing the transportation of fruits and vegetables to the rail network would reduce a lot of road congestion, reduce transport costs, and minimise a lot of post-harvest wastage. It is an obvious solution used in most developed agricultural economies that we are yet to adopt.