At the end of the paddy harvest, farmers in parts of Anuradhapura District are turning to fire to clear their fields for the next cultivation season. In the area between Kapugollawa and Horowpothana, recently harvested paddy fields have been burned, leaving large sections of agricultural land covered in ash.

During an investigation conducted in the area, at least 20 acres of paddy land were identified where the remaining vegetation and paddy residue had been burned shortly after harvesting. The burning was not confined to a single field or an isolated incident. Residents interviewed in the area described it as a recurring practice associated with the period between two cultivation seasons.

The Law vs. The Practice

The practice is particularly significant because Sri Lanka has regulations governing open burning. The National Environmental (Prohibition of Open Burning of Refuse and Other Combustible Matters Inclusive of Plastics) Regulations No. 1 of 2017 prohibit the open burning of refuse and other combustible material. The regulations were issued under the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980.

However, the continuing fires observed in the Anuradhapura area raise questions about how effectively these restrictions are being implemented in agricultural areas and which government institution is responsible for intervening when farmers burn paddy residue.

The Myth of Ash and Fertility

Farmers interviewed during the investigation gave several reasons for continuing the practice. Some said that burning is the fastest way of clearing the field after harvesting, while others associated the practice with pest control and soil fertility.

“We believe that by burning, we can kill all the harmful insects.”

Another farmer said that farmers believed burning the paddy residue would improve the soil.

“We think that when we burn the paddy straw, the soil gets more nutrients.”

These beliefs are important because they demonstrate that burning is not necessarily viewed by farmers as an environmental practice that causes harm. Instead, some farmers regard it as an agricultural management method that helps prepare their fields for the next cultivation cycle.

Agricultural research, however, indicates that the relationship between crop-residue burning and soil fertility is more complicated. Rice straw contains organic material and plant nutrients that can potentially be returned to agricultural soils through appropriate residue-management practices. Burning does not simply transfer all of those nutrients back into the soil. A substantial proportion of the organic material is released through combustion, while the process also produces gases and particulate matter.

An Administrative Void

At least ten residents were interviewed during the investigation. Several said that people in the area were aware that restrictions exist on open burning. The residents did not generally describe the practice as something being done secretly. Instead, they described it as a familiar agricultural practice that continues despite awareness of the restrictions.

The investigation put this question directly to officials responsible for the area. A Grama Niladhari, whose identity is being withheld, was interviewed about the continued burning. A responsible government official and an Agrarian Development officer in the area were also questioned. None of the officials interviewed was able to provide a clear explanation for why the existing restrictions were not being consistently followed.

The officials acknowledged the existence of restrictions concerning burning but did not identify a clearly functioning enforcement mechanism that was systematically preventing farmers from burning their fields.

The Climate Cost

The environmental consequences of paddy-residue burning extend beyond the immediate field where the fire is set. When agricultural residue is burned in the open, combustion releases pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Sri Lanka’s national climate reporting has identified crop-residue burning as a source of greenhouse-gas emissions. Sri Lanka’s Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change identified carbon monoxide and methane among the emissions associated with rice-residue burning and noted the historical prevalence of the practice, particularly in parts of the Dry Zone.

This is relevant to Anuradhapura because the district forms part of Sri Lanka’s Dry Zone, where paddy cultivation is an important component of agricultural livelihoods. The evidence establishes that open burning creates additional emissions and air-pollution impacts and that alternative methods of managing agricultural residue are available.

The Cost of Alternatives

The investigation found that the decision to burn cannot be separated from the practical realities of farming. Paddy residue is bulky and difficult to handle. Collecting it requires labour or machinery, and transporting it away from fields can impose additional costs. Farmers operating on relatively small margins may therefore consider burning the quickest and least expensive option.

Research on rice-straw management in Sri Lanka has identified labour requirements, transportation costs, lack of machinery, and difficulties in finding uses for large quantities of straw among the barriers to alternatives. This means that an effective government response would have to combine enforcement with agricultural support.

Questions for the Authorities

The findings from this investigation raise several questions that require formal answers from the relevant authorities to determine if environmental policy is functioning at the local level:

A Routine that Cannot Continue

The fires observed in the Kapugollawa–Horowpothana area illustrate a broader environmental-management problem. The challenge is not simply to tell farmers not to burn. The government needs to enforce applicable environmental regulations while simultaneously providing farmers with affordable, practical, and scientifically appropriate methods for managing paddy residue.

Without that combination, the cycle is likely to continue: harvest, burn, and prepare for the next cultivation season.

The fires in Anuradhapura expose a gap between environmental policy and its implementation—a gap that can only be closed if the responsible authorities clarify the law, enforce it consistently, and give farmers workable alternatives. For a country already confronting increasing pressure on its environment and climate, continuing to treat agricultural burning as a routine seasonal practice is a problem that cannot be addressed by regulations on paper alone.