Food is a basic human need. Even today, people all over the world are struggling to fulfil this fundamental requirement. But how many of them are actually able to meet it? Every year, 16 October is observed as World Food Day. In line with this, Ceylon Today spoke with Chinthaka Rajapaksha, Operations Director of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform Project (MONLAR) — an organisation working towards food sovereignty in Sri Lanka — about the current national and global situation regarding food.
Following are excerpts:
Why do we need a World Food Day? What is the reason for declaring such a day?
A: World Food Day was established in 1979 to mark the 20th anniversary of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. After the Second World War, the UN was formed, and the FAO was created within this structure. Its initial aim was to build a strong institutional framework capable of addressing future challenges.
Following the war, there was widespread food scarcity around the world. In addition, agriculture and food production were in a state of global uncertainty. Against this backdrop, efforts were being made by political powers to consolidate and expand their influence, often driven by capitalist interests. Institutions like the FAO were created not only to address human problems but also as mechanisms to restore and exert power that had been eroded by the war and economic conditions.
To achieve this, these institutions gathered researchers, scientists, advisers, financial institutions, and multinational corporations, all working together to create a global vision. They designed programmes to assert their influence in global geopolitics while presenting certain issues — such as hunger, food security, and health — as the central problems requiring intervention. Declaring specific days, such as World Food Day, forms part of this broader strategic initiative to shape global perceptions and consolidate power.
So, are you saying that the actions taken by organisations like the FAO have not resulted in any real progress in the world, and that their efforts have been ineffective?
A: Let’s look at it this way. If we examine the statistical reports of these organisations, it becomes very clear that there has been little real progress since their inception. Global poverty, malnutrition, and hunger have not decreased. In fact, the number of people facing hunger has risen – from around 600 million at the time of the FAO’s creation to approximately 1.2 billion today. This shows that decades of programmes have not achieved meaningful results.
Even celebrating days like World Food Day, assigning themes each year, has not provided answers to the core problems. For instance, the 1983 World Food Day theme focused on food security, yet more than 40 years later, we are still far from achieving those goals. Discussions continue without real solutions. In other words, although themes were chosen based on existing conditions, there has been no practical, systematic approach to identifying the true political and economic factors behind hunger. Instead, these institutions implement superficial or symbolic solutions rather than addressing the root problems.
When you say they offer superficial solutions without addressing the real issues, do you mean they are deliberately misleading?
A: Absolutely. But it’s not just misleading — they are part of a system designed to exercise control and influence. These institutions are not organisations for the poor, farmers, or fisherfolk who actually produce food. They were created by and for the global elite and powerful business interests to reinforce their economic and political agendas.
These institutions are not designed to solve real problems. Their structures are meant to protect the interests of multinational corporations and wealthy actors from any challenges or disruptions. Decisions made within these organisations are not democratic, nor are they accountable to the people who actually face hunger.
If we analyse the situation throughout the year, beyond symbolic days, it becomes clear that the world operates according to the interests of these global powers, not human needs. Large-scale land grabs, resource extraction, deforestation, violation of human rights, and the dismantling of locally-based food systems have been carried out systematically. Farmers are trapped in debt, and the control of food production and distribution has been concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corporations.
This is the world we live in today – a world where the industrial food system is embedded in major crises of inequality and control. Therefore, the question is not just about celebrating a particular day; we need to understand the entire system and its consequences.
On the other hand, isn’t the current situation also driven by factors like population growth and climate change, which require increased food production? Can we really say it’s an artificially created situation?
A: That is exactly the argument presented by the global agribusiness sector, and on the surface, it appears reasonable. Resources are limited, the global population is approaching 7 billion, and the world is indeed facing severe climate impacts. From this perspective, their reasoning seems plausible.
After the Green Revolution of 1965, the dominant narrative promoted worldwide was that these factors justified modernising agriculture. However, the truth is more complex. When we look closely, several key aspects challenge this narrative.
The argument that we need to produce more food for a growing population was not generated by farmers working with nature, nor by those actively involved in ecological practices. Instead, it was constructed by external actors – mainly multinational corporations – who drive global agricultural agendas. They promote the idea that this is the ‘necessary’ agricultural system for the future, but it serves their interests, not humanity’s.
Another critical factor is control over resources. Decisions regarding land, water, forests, and seeds have been taken away from local communities and centralised under the control of wealthy elites. These actors now exercise authority over how these resources are used, consolidating economic and political power.
A third factor is the market system. Farmers no longer control the markets for their produce. Market power is concentrated in the hands of large-scale traders, corporations, and officials. As consumers, we are not deciding what we eat – these decisions are imposed by market forces. A few corporations dictate food production patterns and access, determining what reaches people and at what price.
So, while population growth and climate change are real, the core problem is not these factors themselves, but rather the concentration of power over food and resources. When we examine the world today, it becomes clear that food has been weaponised. For example, looking at the Gaza Strip in Palestine, food is used as a tool of control. The question then is: who wields this power, and whose interests does it serve?
It becomes evident that the creation of institutions like the FAO and similar global organisations, as well as their activities, have not produced any real benefit for humanity. Instead, they have largely facilitated the consolidation of power and control over food systems by elite actors.
Then there must be a concrete solution to this situation, right? What alternatives are currently being implemented?
A: Yes, a concrete solution is necessary. This is not a problem that appeared suddenly; for decades, the world has debated how to replace the artificial, superficial solutions imposed by global institutions with real, practical answers. In 1996, the World Food Summit convened, and by 2000, the discussions emphasised that the real solution lies in food sovereignty.
Food sovereignty is possible only through a deep, politically and environmentally conscious agricultural system, rather than top-down programmes dictated by global corporations. This idea gradually gained recognition, and by 2007, concepts such as food security and food sovereignty were formally acknowledged within the FAO framework. This created an opportunity to shift attention from artificial programmes toward genuine, ground-level solutions.
What we see emerging today is a movement led by small-scale food producers worldwide, who are collectively creating real solutions to replace the market-driven, superficial systems imposed by global corporate interests. These efforts prioritise the needs of the producer and the communities who actually depend on food, rather than serving a few powerful investors or multinational companies.
Under this framework, discussions focus on cooperative economic models that place both producers and those lacking access to food at the centre. These systems are not built around a single company, individual, or investor, but rather grow organically through local initiatives and collaboration. This approach is expanding globally, and there are ongoing conversations about transforming the entire food system.
Within these discussions, attention is given to the resources, rights, and ownership of food producers, highlighting that hunger is not caused solely by population growth or climate change. Instead, it is a result of massive resource extraction and dispossession, which has been taking place behind the facade of market-driven food production. The current efforts aim to create alternatives and take concrete action to address these systemic problems.
How is this transformation happening in Sri Lanka? Specifically, is the current Government working to create a ‘Pohosath Ratak – Lassana Jeewithayak’ (A wealthy country – A beautiful life)?
A: The current Government has not made any concrete effort to break free from the existing model. Instead, its vision revolves around competition, efficiency, incentives, and innovation. In pursuing these four principles, the Government aligns itself with institutions seeking technical ‘solutions,’ such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank.
Looking specifically at agriculture, the Government supports the dominance of large-scale commercial agriculture, even at the expense of decades-old smallholder farming systems. This is not what the people expected.
What is required, and what our proposed alternative solutions focus on, is the creation of a cooperative economic system that protects the rights and ownership of small-scale food producers, including farmers and fisherfolk. This includes systems that safeguard seed rights, access to resources, and land ownership for the communities that actually produce food.
People did not expect the Government to pursue large-scale development programmes that sell thousands of acres to corporations, dismantle forest systems, and ignore local food producers. The focus should instead be on empowering local communities, securing their rights, and building resilient, small-scale food systems — but the current administration has not prioritised this.
If the Government is not taking the necessary actions, what interventions have you made within Sri Lanka to create solutions, particularly as a farmer-centred enterprise?
A: As MONLAR, we are engaged in promoting environmentally conscious farming and building a farmer-centred enterprise. Our work is guided by three core principles: scientific knowledge, practical implementation, and enterprise development.
We conduct scientific research on environmentally sustainable farming with small-scale farmers who cultivate their crops without chemical fertilisers. These practices are then applied practically alongside the farmers, building the knowledge and capacity necessary for agricultural transformation. Importantly, this is not an isolated activity; we are developing it as a scalable enterprise.
We also work collectively with other groups worldwide, undertaking similar efforts. For instance, in September of last year, representatives from 102 countries gathered in Sri Lanka for the Third Nyéléni Global Forum on Food Sovereignty, held over eight days in Kandy. During this forum, we engaged in extensive discussions on pathways to achieving food sovereignty.
From these discussions, we drafted a 14-point declaration called the ‘Kandy Declaration’, which outlines how to move toward food sovereignty over the next decade or more. The Third Nyéléni Forum provided a framework to build a strong enterprise capable of countering the artificial, corporate-driven solutions we discussed earlier.
This declaration is set to become the primary foundation for securing food sovereignty in the coming years.
Article by By Methmalie Dissanayake / Ceylon Today (Title has been edited)