In early 2024, the then-government of Sri Lanka, led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, launched a land reform programme titled Urumaya (translates to Heritage) with considerable publicity and fanfare. The initiative aimed to grant freehold land titles to two million farmers and other individuals, thereby conferring full ownership of land. The Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR) — La Via Campesina’s member in Sri Lanka — collaborated with other social movements to scrutinize the policy, identifying several gaps that could undermine its stated goal of equitable land redistribution.
Later that year, in the wake of a historic people’s uprising known as Aragalya, Sri Lanka elected a new government more open to the criticisms directed at the Urumaya initiative. Consequently, in March 2025, Agriculture Minister K.D. Lalkantha announced in Parliament that the Urumaya programme introduced by the Wickremesinghe administration had been discontinued and would be replaced by a new one. He acknowledged the widespread public opposition and noted that a special committee had been appointed to investigate the numerous issues tied to the previous programme.
This article outlines the key concerns raised by MONLAR and other social movements about Urumaya — concerns that could inform and improve the design of any future land reform initiatives.
First up, some context.
The state owns over 80% of the land in Sri Lanka. The remaining land is held by private parties. Under the State Lands Encroachments Ordinance, all wastelands, forest lands, and unoccupied or uncultivated lands are presumed to belong to the state unless proven otherwise. Additionally, any cinnamon land continuously possessed by the state for over 30 years is also considered state property.
“Lands on permits” historically refers to state-owned lands (also known as Crown lands) that are allocated to individuals or entities for specific purposes under various legal frameworks. Until 2024, these permits or licenses granted the right to occupy and use the land, but did not confer full ownership—meaning the land could not be sold.
In 2024, however, the government launched the Urumaya Program, which converted certain land permits into freehold deeds – allowing recipients full rights to use, transfer, sell, or mortgage their land. While the need for land reform is widely acknowledged, the way in which the Urumaya program was implemented raised concerns among social movements such as MONLAR.
The Critique
While social movements, including MONLAR, recognized that the initiative promised to empower farmers and secure their land rights, they called upon the then administration to acknowledge and act upon several risks and challenges to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes.
According to MONLAR, providing full land ownership or titles to farmers in Sri Lanka could potentially increase landlessness, poverty, and indebtedness among small farmers for several reasons. They argued that full land ownership might lead to land consolidation, where larger landowners purchase smaller plots from marginalized farmers who need immediate cash. This could displace smallholder farmers and exacerbate landlessness. The movements also warned that full land ownership may subject small farmers to the pressures of the land market, making it hard for them to compete with larger, wealthier entities. This could lead to the sale of land due to financial distress or an inability to sustainably manage the land.
But why this fear of distress sales and land consolidation?
Short answer: household debt.
Rural household debt in Sri Lanka has escalated significantly in recent years, driven by a combination of economic crises, inflation, and limited access to affordable credit. According to the United Nations Development Programme, 38.5% of Sri Lankan rural households reported accumulated debt. Nearly half of these households borrowed to sustain agricultural activities or related businesses. The dominant sources of this debt include banks, financial institutions, and moneylenders.
In this context, MONLAR feared that small farmers might use their land as collateral for loans—often as a last and desperate resort, especially when no other financial resources are available. Full land ownership could increase the risk of indebtedness if farmers are unable to repay these loans, potentially leading to foreclosures or forced land sales.
While land ownership provides a sense of security and control, the Urumaya program failed to address key structural issues such as access to credit, technology, and markets. Even with ownership, small farmers may continue to struggle with poverty and limited resources, particularly if they lack the means to invest in productivity-enhancing inputs or reach viable markets.
MONLAR therefore warned that if land reform is not linked to broader national policies on agroecology, peasant cooperatives, and credit access, it could eventually lead to the disappearance and dispossession of small farms.
The liberalization of agricultural trade and export-oriented policies often work against smallholders, encouraging land consolidation through acquisitions or contract farming—where farmers lose autonomy despite owning the land. Historically, in both the Global North and South, land reform programs that are disconnected from land use regulation, environmental safeguards, and food sovereignty have led to the dispossession of smallholders and the rise of industrial or contract farms.
MONLAR also expressed concern that growing landlessness could increase rural-to-urban migration—a trend encouraged by international financial institutions and foreign investors seeking cheap labor for urban industrial zones.
In a context of deep social inequality, MONLAR further feared that the distribution of land titles might not be equitable. Influential individuals or groups could secure better access to land rights than others, worsening existing disparities and increasing social tensions and land tenure conflicts. The government must therefore ensure that any reform process is equitable, inclusive, and transparent.
MONLAR warned that unregulated land ownership or land pooling for industrial use could lead to unsustainable practices—such as deforestation, soil degradation, and the over-exploitation of natural resources. These outcomes would have long-term consequences for the environment and agricultural productivity, further deepening rural poverty.
Build a comprehensive reform, not an ad-hoc program
At this critical juncture, as the current Sri Lankan administration designs a new land reform program, MONLAR emphasizes that what is truly needed is a comprehensive agrarian reform.
While land ownership can offer security and empowerment, MONLAR argues that reforms must be grounded in a clear understanding of the broader socioeconomic context. Without this, full land ownership could worsen land inequality, fuel market-driven consolidation, and limit access to essential resources. To avoid such outcomes, it calls for multi-dimensional reforms that address the underlying socioeconomic, legal, and environmental factors affecting small farmers and rural communities.
Key demands from MONLAR and allied movements include:
- Equitable Land Distribution: Land reform must prioritize justice and equity, ensuring marginalized groups—including women, youth, and indigenous communities—secure land rights. Transparent, accessible systems must be in place for land titling and dispute resolution.
- Rejecting the Agribusiness Model: Programs like Urumaya must not reproduce industrial farming on privately held land. Promoting chemical-dependent monocultures, purchased seeds, and large machinery only replaces state exclusion with market exclusion—and deepens ecological destruction.
- Legal Frameworks for Land Tenure Security: Strengthening land laws is essential. This includes safeguarding smallholder rights, streamlining land registration, and adopting legal standards aligned with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP).
- Agroecology and Peasant-Led Farming: The government must support peasant agroecological practices that protect biodiversity, strengthen ecological resilience, and promote community-based natural resource management. This support must include training, technical assistance, and input subsidies tailored to smallholder needs.
- Access to Fair Credit and Financial Security: MONLAR highlights the urgent need for affordable and secure financial services for small farmers—including credit, savings, and insurance—to reduce dependence on predatory lenders and prevent distress sales. That said, it is also important to note that in 2024, MONLAR joined the National Collective of Community-Based Savings and Credit Services Providers to reject a proposed Regulatory Authority for Microfinance and Credit. The collective warned that the bill’s sweeping mandates would criminalize grassroots credit systems, undermining rural women, fisherfolk, and peasants. MONLAR instead calls for the revitalization of the Sri Lanka Savings Bank to support community-driven finance.
- Rural Infrastructure and Market Access: To keep small farms viable and resilient, MONLAR calls for investments in rural infrastructure—roads, irrigation, storage, and local markets. These are essential to reduce post-harvest losses, enhance productivity, and enable small farmers to participate meaningfully in local and national food systems.