Impacts of shocks and coping strategies of vegetable farm households in Sri Lanka during COVID-19 pandemic : a dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agriculture and Rural Development at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Abstract

Over time, smallholders in developing countries, including those in Sri Lanka, face a variety of shocks and develop coping strategies in response. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a novel shock to many farm households in developing countries, often negatively impacting their livelihoods. This exploratory qualitative case study provides a comprehensive study on the impact of the pandemic on Sri Lankan smallholder vegetable farm households and their coping strategies. Data were collected from vegetable farm households and key informants in Nuwaraeliya and Kandy districts, mainly using the interview method and data were analysed qualitatively. Vegetable farm households in Sri Lanka faced multiple, diverse shocks characterised by cumulative, consecutive, interrelated, and ongoing events during the pandemic. This mix of shocks resulted in various impacts on vegetable farm households, but the common outcome on all households was f inancial due, in the main, to increased household costs and decreased household income. Farm households that predominantly depended on income from vegetable selling and farm households that produced only specialised types of vegetables for specialised markets were more adversely affected than others. Smallholder vegetable farm households were diverse in circumstances, production and marketing systems, household capitals, reliance on vegetables as an income source and livelihood activity. At any point in time different strategies related to production, marketing and financial hardships were being used by farm households to respond to the impacts of shocks they experienced. However, there was no consistent mix of strategies. The poorest continued to borrow, while others relied on savings and assets and then started to borrow when resources were depleted. How similar strategies were implemented varied across households depending on the social networks of households. While acknowledging the benefit of diversification for farm households during shocks, this study also illustrates that diversification does not guarantee that it will support farm households in buffering the impacts during a wide-scale shock that extends over a long period. However, market diversification supports farm households to buffer the impacts of shocks with broad-scale impacts. This study also identified the significance of individual household members’ personal characteristics such as motivation and enthusiasm in developing strategies and argues for including this attribute in human capital in the sustainable livelihood framework. Research insights strongly suggest that interventions intended to support farm households in buffering the impacts of shocks need to focus on the household level, prioritising the poorest of the poor while remaining open to addressing the needs of other farm households who might be wealthier but adversely affected by shocks. Providing direct financial support and implementing different financial services to accommodate the varied circumstances of farm households will benefit them during shocks. Interventions to build household and local community resilience will safeguard farm households as it will exclude the risk of overreliance on external government support.