Phone +94 112 870 369
Notice: Test mode is enabled. While in test mode no live donations are processed.
The Sri Lankan government’s “URUMAYA” program, aimed at providing freehold land titles to two million farmers and individuals utilizing lands on permits and conditional grants , has sparked both hope and concern among stakeholders. While the initiative promises to empower farmers and secure their land rights, some potential risks and challenges must be addressed to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes.
In this article, we explore how the provision of freehold land titles to farmers can inadvertently violate the land rights of smallholder farmers, exacerbate poverty and indebtedness, and facilitate large-scale land grabbing. Additionally, we discuss potential strategies and interventions to mitigate these negative impacts and promote inclusive and sustainable land reform in Sri Lanka.
“President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s vision of empowering farmers through land ownership takes shape as the government announces plans to grant freehold titles to two million families. This initiative aims to address long-standing concerns regarding land rights in rural Sri Lanka,” a statement from the president’s media division (PMD) said. – Economynext
Through critical analysis and informed discussion, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding land tenure security and rural development in the country.
Providing full land ownership or titles to farmers in Sri Lanka could potentially increase landlessness, poverty, and indebtedness among small farmers for several reasons.
Land consolidation: In some cases, full land ownership might lead to land consolidation, where larger landowners purchase smaller plots from marginalized farmers who need immediate cash. This process can result in the displacement of smallholder farmers from their land and exacerbate landlessness.
Land market dynamics: Full land ownership may subject small farmers to the pressures of the land market, where they could face difficulties in competing with larger, wealthier entities. This could lead to the sale of land due to financial distress or inability to sustainably manage the land, further contributing to landlessness.
A farmer, on the threshing floor, worships his harvest of rice. (Copyright: Dominic Sansoni)
Indebtedness: Small farmers may use their land as collateral for loans or credit as the last resort, especially in situations where they lack access to other forms of financial resources. Full land ownership could increase the risk of indebtedness if farmers are unable to repay loans, leading to the potential loss of land through foreclosure or forced sales.
Limited access to resources: While land ownership provides security and control over land, it does not necessarily address underlying issues such as access to resources like credit, technology, and markets. Small farmers may continue to struggle with poverty and lack of access to resources even with full land ownership, particularly if they are unable to invest in productivity-enhancing inputs or access to markets.
Inequitable distribution: The distribution of land titles may always not be equitable, with certain groups or individuals with influence having better access to land rights than others. This can worsen existing inequalities within rural communities and contribute to social tensions and conflicts over land tenure rights.
Environmental degradation: Unregulated land ownership could lead to unsustainable land use practices, such as deforestation, soil degradation, or overexploitation of natural resources such as rain forests. This can have long-term detrimental effects on the environment and agricultural productivity, further worsening poverty among small farmers.
“In the past, these persons could not obtain bank loans as they did not have a proper deed for their lands and they could not sell even a small piece of their land.
Overall, while land ownership can provide security and empower small farmers, it is essential to consider the broader socio-economic context and potential implications for land distribution, market dynamics, and access to resources.
Mitigating the potential negative impacts of providing full land ownership or titles to farmers in Sri Lanka sustainably requires a multi-dimensional approach that addresses underlying socio-economic, legal, and environmental factors.
Comprehensive land reform: Instead of ad hoc programs, implement comprehensive land reform policies that prioritize equitable and just distribution of land, protection of land rights for marginalized groups (such as women, youth, and indigenous communities), and mechanisms for resolving land disputes fairly and transparently.
Supportive legal frameworks: Strengthen legal frameworks to ensure secure land tenure and protection of land rights for small farmers (This may include establishing clear and accessible processes for land registration and titling, as well as mechanisms for addressing land-related grievances and conflicts) and create enabling policy and legal environment to implement United National Declaration on the Rights of Peasant and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP).
Promotion of agroecology: Encourage regenerative farming practices, such as agroecology, that prioritize ecological resilience, biodiversity conservation, and community-based natural resource management. Provide technical support, training, and resources to small farmers to adopt agroecological principles and improve land productivity sustainably.
Access to financial services: Expand access to affordable and secure credit, savings, and insurance services for small farmers to reduce their vulnerability to indebtedness and financial risks. Develop innovative financial products tailored to the needs of smallholder farmers, such as microcredit schemes through cooperative and government banks, crop insurance, savings and loan associations, and provision of financial and technical assistance to capacity building.
Investment in rural infrastructure: Improve rural infrastructure, including roads, irrigation systems, storage facilities, and market access, to enhance productivity, reduce post-harvest losses, increase resilience to climate impacts, and increase farmers’ access and ownership to markets and value chains. Prioritize investments in infrastructure that benefit smallholder farmers and promote inclusive and ecological rural development.
Capacity building and extension services: Strengthen agricultural extension services and farmer training programs to build farmers’ capacity in sustainable land management, crop diversification, climate-resilient agriculture, and value-added processing through the invention and introduction of affordable appropriate technology. Enhance knowledge-sharing networks and farmer-to-farmer extension approaches to promote peer learning and innovation.
Community participation and empowerment: Encourage and ensure inclusive decision-making processes that involve small farmers, farmer organizations, local communities, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders in land governance and natural resource management. Empower communities to assert their rights, advocate for their interests, and participate in land-use planning and decision-making processes.
Environmental conservation and sustainable land use planning: Integrate environmental conservation objectives and principles of sustainable land use planning and agroforestry concepts into land reform and agricultural development strategies. Protect ecologically sensitive areas, promote reforestation and soil conservation measures, and incentivize sustainable land management practices that enhance biodiversity through policy incentives and market mechanisms.
Monitoring and evaluation: Establish robust and inclusive monitoring and evaluation systems to track the implementation and impact of land reform initiatives, including their effects on small farmers’ livelihoods, land tenure security, environmental sustainability, and social equity. Use evidence-based data and feedback mechanisms run with the participation of small farmers to inform policy decisions and adaptive management approaches.
So far, various deeds have been given by previous Governments. For example, Swarnabhoomi and Jayabhoomi deeds have been provided for lands developed on permits over a period under the provisions of this Ordinance. But there was no market price for such lands which were owned by the Government.
Such deeds which are a type of permit in reality can be called bogus deeds’ because the lands still belonged to the State and the deed holders just used those lands for agricultural activities and to build small houses. They were not freehold deeds in the true sense of the word. The burning issue faced by those people who have Swarnabhoomi and Jayabhoomi deeds is the inability to obtain bank loans from State or private banks by keeping them as collateral. This is because those lands belong to the State and cannot be auctioned in case of a loan default.”
News
https://www.dailynews.lk/2024/02/07/editorial/385199/a-new-dawn-for-millions/
Partnerships and collaboration: Foster collaboration between farmer organizations, producer cooperatives, government agencies, civil society organizations, academia, and the responsible private sector to mobilize resources, share expertise, and coordinate efforts toward achieving sustainable land reform and rural development goals. Build partnerships that leverage complementary strengths and resources to address complex challenges holistically.
By adopting a holistic and inclusive approach that addresses the socio-economic, legal, and environmental dimensions of land reform and rural development, Sri Lanka can mitigate the potential negative impacts of providing full land ownership to farmers while promoting inclusive and sustainable rural development for the long term.
By Shamila Rathnasooriya
Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR)
February 09, 2024
Subscribe us to get latest updates of Sri Lankan Peasant movement
Error: Contact form not found.
Leave a Reply