Archives

by Dr. Kingsley A. de Alwis Former Senior Adviser (Agriculture), FAO, Rome

A workshop was held yesterday 4 August 2002 to discuss the final draft of a National Land Use Policy (NALUP) for Sri Lanka. The draft document has been drawn up by the Ministry of Lands with assistance from the UNDP and circulated to intended participants in the workshop and other interested people.

The first question that needs to be asked is, "Why are we trying to develop a national land use policy before we have framed a national land policy?" Although the draft document mentions that the land use policy will "provide the basis for efficient use of land within the framework of a National Land Policy" we have yet to see this National Land Policy.

There are many policy aspects related to land that need to be dealt with by the state, which may not receive adequate treatment under a land use policy alone. These include, among other things, (i) land ownership/ tenure, (ii) land titling, (iii) inheritance laws, (iv) rules and costs of land transactions, (v) development of a land market, (vi) taxation of land, (vii) land valuation, (viii) management of common property resources, (ix) acquisition of land for public purposes (x) voluntary and involuntary resettlement, (xi) public investments in land development (irrigation, rehabilitation, reclamation, establishment of land banks, etc.) and (xii) land information systems including land data banks. I would recommend that we try to develop a National Land Policy, taking all these aspects into consideration, before we try to finalise a National Land Use Policy.

Land policy should be dynamic and evolving continuously to meet changing needs and conditions. For example, special considerations may have to apply to a Land Policy for the Northeast, depending on the modalities to be worked out during peace negotiations. In fact, the devolution of decision making responsibilities on land matters would need a thorough re-examination in the context of any "devolution package". Allowance should therefore be made for such changes to be incorporated in the National Land Policy as the need arises.

Furthermore, some of the policy changes that may be introduced in the Northeast, with respect to land rights for instance, may necessitate changes in land policies in the rest of the country too. Land policies should also be closely related to the macro-economic environment. Thus, more emphasis is needed on the policy reforms needed to develop an efficient land market.

Specifically, the existing restrictions on land sales, land use and leasing and renting of land need to be removed.

Some of the premises of the Policy Foundation of the NALUP appear to be flawed. For example a national land use policy is proposed as a way of dealing with the multiplicity of institutions dealing with land. The NALUP is touted as a substitute for much-needed institutional reform.

Presently there are over 85 state institutions in Sri Lanka's agricultural sector that are in some way concerned with the use of land.

Presumably the need to implement this policy will result in the 86th institution being created! This institutional jungle can best be rationalised by restructuring the agricultural sector rather than through land use policy measures.

There is in the NALUP another implicit and rather naive assumption that the formulation of a land use policy alone "will overcome the present misuse and mismanagement of the land resource". Equally, the idea that a land use policy will "provide the necessary guidance for a concerted programme of economic and social development" is a non sequitur.

There is a strong bureaucratic flavour in the enunciation of many of the proposed policies. A good example is the statement that, "the general norms with regard to the use of land will be laid down". The document goes on to say that these norms will have "regard to soil, climate, rainfall, soil erosion, forest cover, environmental factors, economic viability, etc". What it fails to do is to take into account the present land use, as well as the socio-economic conditions of the user and his or her willingness/ interest/ capacity to change the existing land use to the recommended land use. It should be realised that land policy cannot be implemented by administrative regulation or fiat, but should be put into practice with the cooperation of the user/owner, preferably using appropriate incentives.

The Draft National Land Use Policy (NALUP) suggests that the state would encourage the private ownership of land. This sounds more like a good intention (e.g. mothers will be encouraged to breast-feed their babies!) rather than a definitive premise on which the policy will be founded.

The basic fact is that the government still owns some 80% of the land in the country and needs to divest a substantial proportion of this land if economic activity in the agricultural and other land-related sectors is to be increased. Admittedly, much land (close to two million hectares since independence) has been alienated to landless people for village expansion, various colonisation schemes and settlements under new irrigation projects. However, the government retains various restrictive rights over these lands and has been reluctant to grant private title to the allottees. The proportion and categories of state-owned land that would ultimately be retained should be set as a target.

The role of the state is identified in the NALUP as that of facilitator and manager rather than owner. This is a welcome change from the inherently socialistic thinking that seems to persist among some policy makers, notwithstanding the lessons that should have been learned from the failure of the nationalisation of estates in the mid-seventies. The state could be a facilitator of good land use and land management by (a) providing specific services to users, such as land evaluation, land use planning, and extension for better land management and soil and water conservation, (b) simplifying land transactions, and (c) providing financial as well as non-monetary incentives where appropriate. The state should be a manager only in the sense that it takes responsibility for the overall management of land as a national resource. It should not try to be a direct manager of land except for publicly owned land reserved for public purposes.

Ensuring food security is repeatedly mentioned as an objective of Land use policy. While this could be an overall government policy (albeit in my view a faulty one if it refers to self-sufficiency) within the ambit of its agricultural policy, it should definitely not be an aim of land use policy. The NALUP aims "to bring about rational distribution of population and settlements in order to ensure orderly economic growth and balanced regional development".

This should raise a red flag among policy makers as it is not simply a land use policy matter, but has much wider policy and even political implications. If, however, the government does decide to adopt this as a general policy, it would have implications for land policy also. However, such a demographic policy once again smacks of a bureaucratic approach to achieving balanced regional development. On the other hand, the policy with respect to the disposal and use of land by decentralised administrations (Provincial Councils, Pradeshiya Sabhas) would need to be clarified.

"Allocation of land rationally among competing uses" based on land evaluation, as proposed under the NALUP is possible only if the land is owned and managed by the state. Private landowners will not accept being dictated to by the state as to what they should grow or how they should use their land. They are likely to respond, however, to changes in the incentive framework, which promotes the desired changes in land use.

Some of the issues related to agricultural land use have already been addressed above. Others include the following:

(a) The policy statement, "Effective and suitable conservation measures will be a non-negotiable pre-requisite for agricultural land use" represents another piece of bureaucratic thinking. How is it going to be implemented? It would be much more practical to say that farmers and plantation managers will be encouraged to adopt conservation farming practices by providing them with the necessary technological advice and, where appropriate, suitable incentives. In some cases, it might be possible to induce conservation by "stealth", i.e. by making it a spin-off from direct productivity-enhancing activities such as moisture conservation, increasing the period over which crops cover the land, etc. (b) "All marginal and uncultivated lands will be improved and converted to appropriate land uses." This is another item on the wish list. How is this going to be achieved? The present Agricultural Productivity Law is only applied in a few cases - its administration being well beyond the capacity of the staff available. Is it worthwhile building up another huge bureaucracy for this? A more practical way would be to help make farming more profitable through new technologies, easier credit and better marketing opportunities.

(c) The proposed policy to prevent the conversion of agricultural land to other uses is impractical. How and by whom is it going to be enforced? Control of land use should be implemented using economic levers rather than by a Commissar through administrative means.

(d) Not enough attention is given in the policy document to the effect of existing land use and prevailing land tenure systems on land use decisions. It is as if the policy is being written on a clean slate. The implementation of many of the proposed, ideal-world policies will encounter obstacles to implementation due to failure to take the reality of the existing land use into account.

(e) The twin issues of the small size of average land holdings and continuing fragmentation are not dealt with at all by the NALUP even though these constitute one of the major obstacles to developing an efficient marketing system for smallholders.

(f) Much emphasis seems to be given in the policy document to ensuring the adoption of appropriate land use by land owners; the monitoring and regulation of land management should also receive attention in the policy. There are no policies for wetlands or urban land use.

Finally, after the workshop has deliberated seriously on the finer nuances of different land use policy options, no doubt a glossy document will be published triumphantly setting out the a final National Land Use Policy that is full of good intentions.

Predictably, like other such policy documents that, like the road to hell, are paved with good intentions, it will remain unutilised, unread and seven its existence unknown to people actually using the land.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager