In 2021, the government of Sri Lanka sought to stimulate the country’s transition to organic farming by way of an import ban on fertilizers and pesticides. The ban came suddenly and unexpectedly for farmers and was disastrous for food security in the context of a fragile national economy. How could this happen? This article examines three related problem complexes: (1) the logic and background to the sudden move to ban agrochemicals, (2) the reasons why the policy was unsuccessful, and (3) the links to subsequent farmers’ protests. Using a political ecology approach, the article relies on document analysis, protest data, and reevaluation of prior field interviews. Although the proposed transition to organic agriculture had been the subject of a decade-long debate in Sri Lankan society, the sudden import ban itself can be attributed to foreign currency shortages and budgetary pressures. Furthermore, the implementation style reflected the authoritarian approach of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government, favoring top-down decision-making and strict regulatory policy. This approach met with resistance from farmers, ultimately leading to the government’s collapse and the president’s resignation. The analysis suggests that abrupt and large-scale imposition of organic farming practices (or indeed other sustainability transitions) is doomed to fail in the absence of prior consultation with stakeholders such as farmers and experts, together with appropriate compensation mechanisms, technical and logistical planning, and knowledge transfer.
Sören Köpke (2026) studied this question.