IFPRI Discussion Paper 01644

May 2017

Building Resilience for Food Systems in Postwar Communities

Case Study and Lessons from Northern Sri Lanka

Hamsha Pathmanathan

Suresh Chandra Babu

Chandrashri Pal

Director General’s Office

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides evidence-based policy solutions to sustainably end hunger and malnutrition and reduce poverty. The Institute conducts research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the Institute’s work. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, including development implementers, public institutions, the private sector, and farmers’ organizations, to ensure that local, national, regional, and global food policies are based on evidence.

AUTHORS Hamsha Pathmanathan is a graduate of the Master of Environmental Science program in the School of Environment, Resources, and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Suresh Chandra Babu (s.babu@cgiar.org) is a senior research fellow and head of the Capacity Strengthening Unit in the Director General’s Office of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Chandrashri Pal is a recent graduate from the School of Environment, University of Toronto, Canada.

Notices 1. IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. They have not been subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute. 2. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors.

3. This publication is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Copyright 2017 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced for personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. To reproduce the material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires express written permission. To obtain permission, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

iii

Contents

Abstract v

Acknowledgments vi

1. Introduction 1

2. Conceptual Framework 3

3. Case Study of Postwar Northern Sri Lanka 6

4. Methodology 7

5. Results and Discussion 9

6. Lessons for Postwar Rebuilding of Resilient Food Systems 32

7. Concluding Remarks 34

References 35

iv

Tables

5.1 Factors affecting the policy subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system 10

5.2 Factors affecting the institutional subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system 18

5.3 Factors affecting the production subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system 24

Figures

2.1 Conceptual framework for transformation into a resilient food system 4

2.2 Conceptual framework for building a resilient food system under war and conflict 5

3.1 Map of Kilinochchi District 6

4.1 Communities chosen for qualitative interviews 7

Box

5.1 Summary of the policy subsystem’s evolution toward improved resilience 13

v

ABSTRACT

Prolonged civil wars can have long-lasting adverse effects on food systems, leading to poverty and food insecurity. Overcoming food insecurity and land inequality is particularly difficult because of the highly politicized nature of conflict. This paper builds on the existing literature on food sovereignty to ensure sustainable livelihoods and community ownership of a resilient food system. We identify components of community food security to be strengthened in a post war reconstruction context. We study the impacts of the civil war on food and land administration systems, farmer struggles and current transitional justice process in relation to community food security in the Northern and Eastern Provinces in Sri Lanka and identify the technological, institutional, organizational, and infrastructural setbacks caused by conflict. It explores how such setbacks could be rectified and a resilient food system could be built in the postwar scenario.

Keywords: resilience, food systems, community food Security, food sovereignty, individual capacity, organizational capacity, system capacity, Sri Lanka

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was undertaken as a part of, and funded by, the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), which is led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and funded by CGIAR Fund Donors. The authors would like to thank the farmers and regional government officials of northern Sri Lanka who were willing to be interviewed for the study. The authors also thank Mahika Shishodia and Sylvia Blom for their editorial and production support in preparation of this paper. This paper has not gone through IFPRI’s standard peer-review procedure. The opinions expressed here belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of PIM, IFPRI, or CGIAR.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Prolonged civil wars, along with climate change, intensify the vulnerability of food systems to natural disasters such as droughts and floods. Although there have been considerable efforts to reduce the effects of such shocks at the global level, rebuilding the resilience of local food systems after war or conflict deserves greater attention for several reasons.

Building resilient food systems is key to reconstruction after internal conflicts since community food security is inextricably linked with land issues and to mitigate the negative effects of natural disasters. Yet little is known about the social, institutional, and policy capacity challenges faced in building these resilient food systems. This paper presents the case study of northern Sri Lanka, which suffered one of the longest civil wars in recent history to identify policy and program options for building resilient food systems and to draw lessons for other postwar communities.

Postwar agrarian societies experience a sharp decline in their agricultural productivity. A common negative effect of war in agrarian societies is the impact it has on the degradation of natural ecosystems. War and conflict degrades land integrity through destruction of natural biodiversity, deforestation, contamination of land and water, massive displacement of the local people and disruption in practicing traditional methods of cultivation that would strengthen resilience (McNeely 2003; Vanasselt 2003; Breisinger et al. 2014). All these factors in turn diminish resilience of land agroecosystems to environmental and climatic stresses.

Less resilience negatively influences the structure and functioning of natural ecosystems, impacting the productivity of local food systems. For example, degradation of land, along with loss of financial assets during periods of conflict, poses a serious problem in agrarian communities that have limited or no access to inputs for soil fertility (Özerdem and Roberts 2012; Sarvananthan 2007). These constraints along with disrupted access to their traditional lands and degradation results in depleted soil nutrient stocks and low levels of land productivity. Furthermore, war and conflict result in frequent blockages and dangers of using local infrastructure, such as roads and bridges (Gates et al. 2012) and destroying water infrastructure (Fraser, Mousseau, and Mittal 2017).

The inability to use existing infrastructure prevents farmers from accessing local markets to sell their produce to earn an income, further stressing income potential and thus affecting their ability to harvest more in the next growing season (Kulatunga and Lakshman 2013; Immink and Alarcon 1993). In addition, conflicts result in precarious living conditions, in which civilians live in constant fear of death.

Building resilient food systems requires the application of resilience thinking to the challenges food systems face related to major and prolonged disturbances (Walker and Salt 2012). Study of resilience in the food system and post war context also involves understanding the political, socioeconomic, and technological factors that produce primary and secondary effects during the process of reconstruction. Understanding the changes that shocks cause in food systems and developing strategies to make systems resilient requires addressing the following questions: What factors contribute to food system changes under normal conditions, and how do they differ in the context of prolonged shocks, such as war and conflict? How can we ultimately build the resilience capacity of these components over time while mitigating the current challenges encountered by participants within the food systems? The paper addresses these questions by extending an existing conceptual framework and applying it to the postwar context in northern Sri Lanka.

One of the agricultural systems most impacted during and after war is paddy cultivation. Rice is the primary agricultural product in the country, including the Northern Province, which was the epicenter of the conflict. The Northern Province includes the districts of Jaffna and Kilinochchi, as well as the Vanni region (consisting of Mannar, Mullaitivu, and Vavuniya districts). The Vanni region was once the northern stronghold of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and encompassed parts of the districts of Kilinochchi (to the north), Mullaitivu (east), Mannar (west), and Vavuniya (south) (Human Rights Watch 2008). Within the Vanni region, rice paddy cultivation is the dominant agricultural practice in Kilinochchi District, which is also the largest agrarian region on the island (Saravananathan 2007).

2

However, three decades of civil war have severely affected rice production in Kilinochchi District, which was responsible for nearly 12 percent of all paddy contribution to the Sri Lankan agricultural economy before the war began in the early 1980s (Sarvananthan 2007).

After the war, paddy farmers in this region began to use agrochemicals, deviating from the traditional subsistence forms of cultivation prevalent before the onset of the civil war (Jeyawardena 2000). Continuous exploitation of the land with excessive agrochemical inputs over the last three decades, along with frequent severe droughts, contributed to a loss of soil structure and natural nutrient resources, leading to the degradation of the soils’ biological, physical, and chemical properties. Furthermore, in communities that relied only on subsistence agriculture, low productivity caused by degenerated soil decreased local food availability and food security (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Given the negative effects of prolonged war, this case study identifies the technological, institutional, organizational, and infrastructural setbacks caused by conflict. It explores how such setbacks could be rectified and a resilient food system could be built in a postwar scenario.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a conceptual framework for rebuilding a resilient food system after war and conflict. Section 3 presents the case study of northern Sri Lanka. Section 4 offers lessons learned from the case study, and Section 5 concludes the paper.

3

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Research on rebuilding the resilience of food systems after natural shocks and conflicts has been increasing (Lengnick 2015). However, there is little systematic analysis of factors contributing to the resilience of food systems, particularly given that the concept of resilience is still evolving. There is also inadequate development of indicators and empirical methods to test hypotheses related to key resilience principles that can be applied to a country still grappling with transitional justice while continuing postwar reconstruction. There are several frameworks to describe the state of resilience. For example, Lewis and Conaty (2012) identified diversity, modularity, social capital, innovation, overlapping institutional mechanisms, communication for self-correction, and ecosystem services as key components of a resilient economic system. Decentralization and devolution of power to local communities are also seen as imperative to improve the resilience of natural resources and food systems (Scarborough and Mendez 2015). Building resilient systems has also been seen within the framework of building the capacity of institutions and communities to collectively experiment and participate in decision making on the issues and problems they experience (Walker and Salt 2012).

This paper applies a recently developed framework for studying factors that affect the resilience capacity of food systems (Babu and Blom 2014). According to the framework, for a country to move from low resilience and food insecurity to high resilience and food security, a structural transformation is required at the individual, organizational, and system levels (Babu and Blom 2014).

Figure 2.1 diagrammatically depicts this transformation. At low levels of resilience capacity, the system is highly susceptible to adverse shocks, increasing peoples’ vulnerability to food insecurity and reducing the incomes of farmers. Conversely, at high levels of resilience capacity, countries can recover and bounce back from crises through timely interventions, accurate recognition of the problem, evidence-based solutions, mobilization of adequate resources, effective implementation, and proper monitoring and evaluation. Hence, a food system is resilient when “its individual members and groups have the capacity to anticipate, prevent, prepare for, cope with, and recover from shocks, such that after a shock, they follow a trajectory that ensures that the food system is even stronger than it was prior to the shock” (Babu and Blom 2014, 2).

Structural transformation at the individual, organizational, and systems levels takes place when the country is fully capacitated across the three major subsystems of resilience: the policy subsystem, the institutional subsystem, and the production subsystem.

Analytical capacity to anticipate shocks, understand their effects on food security, and develop solutions to overcome them is an example of a necessary capacity at the policy subsystem level. This capacity requires an evidence-based and transparent policy process that empowers communities and builds sufficient safety nets to ensure that they do not remain vulnerable. The markets, trade, and institutional subsystem is the one through which policies are implemented. It affects the food system by, for example, reducing its capacity to effectively transfer food from producer to consumer. This subsystem includes data collection systems, regulators, government agencies, and the legislative framework of the country. The production subsystem includes the technical capacity of the food system to adapt to physical and environmental changes or shocks. It requires, for instance, strong agricultural research institutions, extension agencies, input supply mechanisms, distribution channels, infrastructure for storage, and reliable input and output market access.

4

LOW-RESILIENCE FOOD SYSTEM

FOOD INSECURITY FOOD SECURITY

HIGH-RESILIENCE FOOD SYSTEM

Monitoring food security

indicators

Recognizing food emergencies and food security risks

Evidence-based policy making and

investment planning

Decentralization and mobilization of communites

for food security action

Policy analysis and program

evaluation

Creating, maintaining, and utilizing each of

these capacities

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework for transformation into a resilient food system

Source: Adapted from Babu and Blom (2014).

Figure 2.2 offers a framework for these three subsystems in the context of building resilient postwar food systems. In this framework, the three subsystems are further elaborated to identify the underlying factors (policy subsystem), intermediate factors (institutional subsystem), and immediate factors (production subsystem) in structural transformation. The transformation of the food system from prewar conditions (State 1), through war and conflict (State 2), and toward a resilient postwar food system (State 3) is depicted in three different ways. War and conflict exert a shock to the food system and transform it negatively to low levels of various subsystems. This deterioration continues throughout the period of conflict (from State 1 to State 2). Rebuilding resilience after the conflict requires identifying opportunities for moving from State 2 to State 3.

The first step in designing interventions to build resilient food systems comprises identifying the factors of the three subsystems and assessing their states. The second step is analyzing causal factors that can improve the resilience of each subsystem. Finally, the third step in the transformation is developing intervention actions toward rebuilding food systems to make the subsystems resilient to postwar stresses and climate change. In essence, the policy subsystem (encompassing the underlying factors) is accountable for developing preventive measures to reduce the impacts of shocks on vulnerable populations, and is also the foundation for creating sustainable market, trade, and institutional systems (Babu and Blom 2014). As a result, a resilient food production subsystem (encompassing the immediate factors) must have the technical capacity to adapt to physical and environmental stressors. Furthermore, it must be able to incorporate data produced by market, trade, and institutional systems to develop innovative technology and processes to benefit farmers and their livelihoods (Babu and Blom 2014).

Monitoring food security

indicators

Recognizing food emergencies and

secuirty risks

Evaluation-based policy making and

investment planning

Decentralization and mobilization of communites

for food security action

Policy analysis and program

evaluation

Creating, maintaining, and utilizing each of

these capacities

Low resilience capacity: Individual,

organizational, and system

High resilience capacity: Individual,

organizational, and system

Structural transformation

5

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework for building a resilient food system under war and conflict

Source: Adapted from Babu and Blom (2014).

STATE 1 STATE 2 STATE 3

Prewar food system

Sustainability of systems: • Ecological • Technological • Environmental • Natural resources • Institutional • Policy • Community owned

Postwar resilient food system

• Decentralization process • Budgetary process, local revenue

control • Institutional relations: central,

provincial, and local governments • Institutional architecture, capacity • Research and education extension

systems • Market institutions, risk-reduction

insurance mechanisms • Local social service networks • Peace-building process and institutions

• Policy process, participation • External support, donors, budgetary

allocations, program implementation • Gender relations, culture, customs • Internal security, personal freedom • Governance and accountability

mechanisms • Political and legal environment and

support

• Farm production system, focusing on smallholders

• Household and social protection, transitional support

• Communities, livelihood systems, employment • Access to knowledge, adoption of innovations • Asset building • Access to primary healthcare and other social

services • Gender relations, mainstreaming • Access to land, natural resources management

Intermediate factors Underlying factors

Immediate factors

Shock Rebuilding a resilient food

system

6

3. CASE STUDY OF POSTWAR NORTHERN SRI LANKA

We apply the above conceptual framework to understand the recovery and rebuilding process of food systems in northern Sri Lanka—a region devastated by 30 years of civil war. By way of geographical background, the district of Kilinochchi (9.3833° N, 80.4000° E), situated in the north of Sri Lanka, and covers a total area of 1237.11 km2 (Sri Lanka, District Secretariat- Kilinochchi 2015). Kilinochchi District is divided into four subdivisions: Pachchilaipalli, Kandavalai, Karachchi, and Poonakary (Sri Lanka, DoS 2014) and contains the town of Kilinochchi and the Ariviyal Nagar research center (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Map of Kilinochchi District

Source: Pathmanathan (2014).

We will use the conceptual framework presented in the previous section to analyze and understand the factors that facilitate or hinder the rebuilding of food systems and to identify program and policy interventions that would help in the transformation of a war-ravaged food system into a resilient one.

In civil war, if ethnic conflict and inequality were the predominant precursors, then post war there would be mistrust between actors of both sides of governance: the central policy making state and its constituents, the local people who are the most impacted in the war affected areas. This situation is reflected in Sri Lanka where the agrarian Northern and Eastern Provinces are the most acutely impacted during and in the aftermath of the protracted war of almost 30 years (Krishnamurthy et al. 2014).

To fully understand the causes of food security in Northern and Eastern Province it is necessary in brief to know the recent history of the affected region which are the traditional homelands of the Tamil majority and Muslim minority communities. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group, fought to make the North-East sovereign of the remainder of the country which is dominated by the Sinhalese Buddhist people. The Sinhalese majority constitute the wide majority of the central government of Sri Lanka and almost entirely composes the Sri Lankan Army (Choi 2012; Mittal 2015). There is a long history to the war that characterized it as an ethnic conflict. In the analysis below, we use ramifications the civil war bore on the agrarian dependent Northern and Eastern Provinces which can help unpack the challenges that current postwar development and reconstruction agendas pose to achieve food security and sovereignty.

7

4. METHODOLOGY

This paper follows a case study approach based on research conducted near the study site in Ariviyal Nagar to discover specific constraints to rebuilding resilient food systems. To assess the policy subsystem, we used information from key farmer interviews and discussions at a national-level workshop. Further, we also reviewed national and regional policy documents to understand the current policies and programs that affect the rebuilding of the food system in northern Sri Lanka. To analyze the institutional and production subsystems, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews evaluating land management practices in Kilinochchi. The interviews took place during the 2013/2014 growing season, from October to February. Four communities were chosen for interviews based on their proximity to each other within the district of Kilinochchi: Bharathipuram, Kanakambikaikulam, Malaiyaalapuram, and Thiruvaiyaar. For the purposes of this study, farmers were interviewed in a semi-structured manner. All questions were anchored around specific themes: (1) practice of traditional ecological knowledge; (2) current knowledge about sustainable land management practices; (3) existing traditional knowledge about agroforestry systems and practices, such as home gardening; (4) communities’ ability to access means of production, such as tractors, seeds, and fertilizers; and (5) current cropping practices. In order to simulate a transactional approach to selecting farmers for interview, farms in the four villages were approached in a linear fashion, selecting only those that were along the main road. The locations of the four communities are shown in the map in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Communities chosen for qualitative interviews

Source: Pathmanathan (2014).

8

Only farms that had visible farming fields or home gardens attached to their property were approached. Self-identified farmers were asked for their permission to be interviewed. When the farmer was not present or available, the spouse was asked for permission. Those farmers who refused to participate in the interviews were respected and marked as refusals. In total, 8 families were interviewed in Kanakambikaikulam, 1 in Bharathipuram, 12 in Thiruvaiyaar, and 9 in Malaiyaalapuram. The interviews were conducted in the local dialect of Tamil.

The data collected from the interviewees were recorded, transcribed, and organized as accurately as possible after the interview collection period in the field. The data were coded manually to identify and track the frequency of overarching themes across interviews. Participant names were not revealed to maintain anonymity. The data were analyzed using the Building Capacity for Resilient Food Systems model developed by Babu and Blom (2014) to understand how to improve resilience in postwar northern Sri Lankan food systems.

9

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In line with the conceptual framework presented in Section 2, we discuss the results in this section through the three subsystems: the policy subsystem (underlying factors), the institutional subsystem (intermediate factors), and the production subsystem (immediate factors). Details and application of each subsystem within the Sri Lankan context are presented below.

The Policy Subsystem in Northern Sri Lanka This section assesses the capacity of Sri Lanka’s policy subsystem to determine the extent to which it can inform policies and programs that enable farmers and markets to become more resilient—particularly in the context of rebounding after the civil war. The analysis uncovered gaps in Sri Lanka’s policy subsystem for supporting the evolution of a resilient food system in the northern part of the country, detailed in Table 5.1 and summarized in Box 5.1.

10

Table 5.1 Factors affecting the policy subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system Policy subsystem (underlying factors)

State 1 (prewar)

State 2 (during conflict)

State 3 (postwar)

Potential interventions

Policy process and participation

Unfair land policies that resulted in settlement of Sinhalese peasantry into Tamil-dominated northern Sri Lanka Deliberate national policy instituted to prevent the expansion of Tamils and Muslims within the region and thereby change the demographic pattern of the Eastern and Northern provinces

Breakdown of policy system Limited consultation between provincial and central powers with regard to land rights, tenure, and ownership in northern Sri Lanka No regional interests of the Northern Province considered in central decision-making processes due to unequal power distribution

Lack of transparency in policy system Low participation and inclusion of key stakeholders (civil society and local welfare groups) in new policy processes

Land policies that encompass the needs of marginalized groups and improve tenure security for communities in the north need to be developed in a comprehensive and transparent manner with inputs from affected stakeholders and decision makers.

External support and interaction

Most of the technical and foreign aid entering Sri Lanka in the late 1970s channeled through a national government with a capitalist agenda, with little, if any, trickle-down to non-government entities.

Assistance to rebels from India and the Tamil diaspora

Civil society action continues to be restricted.

Encouragement of support and inputs from civil societies, stakeholders, and diaspora will speed up the process of equitable institutional and policy development.

Budgetary allocation and policy program implementation

Budget allocation exploitative, unfair, and mostly funneled into a few key Sri Lankan ministries

No budget allocation process in place because administrations of rebel-controlled regions not recognized by central government Programs implemented on ad-hoc basis

Due to militarization of administration, very little or no local government control over budget allocation and program implementation in the north of the country Budget allocation still dishonest, targeting only urban and other infrastructure development

Transparent budget allocation and consultative process are required. Devolution of power to provinces and local governments is needed (more in Table 5.2). Citizens need a right to information.

11

Table 5.1 Continued Policy subsystem (underlying factors)

State 1 (prewar)

State 2 (during conflict)

State 3 (postwar)

Potential interventions

Gender relations, culture, and customs

Government attempt to promote and uphold equal participation of women in sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and cultural development in Sri Lanka Northern regions culturally well-developed in the Hindu religion; Tamil traditions and customs observed without contestation

In contrast to prewar period, greater responsibility for women in rebel forces and government High numbers of widows and destitute people because of ongoing combat within the Northern Province; many civilians forced to flee due to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

An estimated 90,000 widows in the aftermath of war Approximately 50,000 households headed by women in the Northern Province No specific policies or programs in place to rehabilitate widows Continuing culture of fear and inequitable practices in war-torn regions

Special programs that empower female-headed households within the policy-making process are needed. Parliament must accept the responsibility of returning land to Sri Lanka’s war widows and supporting them as they rebuild their lives and livelihoods.

Internal security and personal freedom

Declining internal security Increased army presence that reduced freedom of movement, resulting in war

Seventy percent of the population internally displaced, landless, poor, and food insecure

Lack of security and freedom to move Private property ownership still constrained by regulations increasing military presence in the northern region

Smooth transfer of governance and civil authority from military to local institutions.

Governance and accountability mechanisms

Landownership and governance unequal between the Southern, Eastern, and Northern provinces of Sri Lanka Private property ownership not respected

No coherent governance policies due to segregation and isolation of the northern and southern parts of the country No accountability by government or rebel forces for any drastic or major decisions that impacted the lives and livelihoods of communities within the Northern Province

Lack of clarity in implementing new laws and regulations in the north of the country Transparency lacking in government growth, permits, and leasing programs

Central government commitment to rebuilding and reconciliation in war-impacted areas needs to increase. There is a need to demilitarize governance within the Northern Province. Central government and institutional accountability and transparency through civil society engagement will strengthen governance laws and promote basic human rights.

12

Table 5.1 Continued Policy subsystem (underlying factors)

State 1 (prewar)

State 2 (during conflict)

State 3 (postwar)

Potential interventions

Political and legal environment and support

Unclear legal status of minority groups, with local political parties unable to support or protect them from atrocities caused by government officials

Decision-making and legal environment completely broken down Enabling environment for limited functioning of food systems provided by rebel administration

Inadequate legislative and policy support for resettlement laws Regulations still complicated and incomprehensible Presence of army in high numbers, creating a barrier to an open and transparent policy environment

Involvement and engagement of stakeholders at various levels of the food system value chain needs to increase to strengthen the political and legal processes of developing sustainable and acceptable land and agricultural policies. Support is needed for local civil society organizations to gain more participation in policy systems.

Source: Authors.

13

Box 5.1 Summary of the policy subsystem’s evolution toward improved resilience

Source: Authors.

Lack of Transparency and Cooperation between Policy Institutions Land policies and institutions are a good starting point for a study of policy subsystem factors and their contribution to building resilient food systems because land-related systems face challenges, and constraints similar to those of policy systems in other areas of development. Land policy issues are also highly contentious and cut across all the subsystems analyzed in this study.

Devolution of control and decision making power to administer land permits, deeds and of the reconstruction process itself is critical in postwar states and GoSL has committed to certain principles in the transitional justice process (Daily Financial Times 2015). Some of recommendations of recent reviews include returning occupied land and demilitarization; both vital to achieve food security in the North-East region (Roar 2016; The Maatram Foundation 2015).

Despite the end of three decades of civil war, land continues to be a topic of dispute in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, specifically with respect to issues of landlessness, land tenure and ownership, and aggressive land grabs by the central government (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; Fonseka 2016; Mittal 2015). Issues associated with landownership indirectly impact the livelihoods of

Prewar: Unfair land policies and unequal and exploitative budget allocation by the Sri Lankan government resulted in the decline of internal security. Further, an increase in army presence within the northern regions of country led to ethnic tension and civil war. The situation was exacerbated by the unclear status of minority groups, who had little political support or representation in the government. During the war: Limited communication between central and provincial powers was followed by a complete breakdown of the land policy and the hijacking of civil administration by rebel forces. Foreign assistance that entered rebel-controlled areas came from India and the large Tamil diaspora, and was used predominantly for military and some livelihood enhancement purposes. Prolonged war resulted in the internal displacement of 70 percent of the population, most of them impoverished civilians and war widows (Quist 2015). Sri Lanka became a divided country with very little or no communication between the two regions, which further impacted the lives and livelihoods of agrarian families caught in the midst of war. Postwar: There is very little transparency in policy systems, which still exclude civil societies and local groups from development activities (Insight on Conflict 2013). Militarization of civil administration in the north has further impacted fair budget allocation and continues to feed into the culture of fear prevalent in the region (Fonseka and Jegatheeswaran 2014). Female-headed households have become common in the postwar landscape, and these women struggle to support their families (Alison 2003). Security and freedom of movement are constrained by complicated and incomprehensible regulations. Recommendations: Land, natural resource, and agricultural policies that benefit war-impacted families need to be developed in a transparent manner, with inputs from all levels of society. Civil society groups working in the area should be involved for this purpose. Such organizations can also play an important role in mediating the postwar ethnic tension and in rebuilding society. The government should use a consultative process with citizens, with devolution of power to local governments. Sri Lanka should look at successful land reform policies of other countries. There should be special programs to empower female-headed households and war widows. Demilitarizing governance and slowly transferring power to local government will be an important step in institutional rebuilding. Finally, accepting support from the diaspora will expedite the rebuilding and reconciliation process in war-impacted areas through greater legitimacy and trust.

14

communities inhabiting these regions. Almost 56 percent of the population derives its livelihood from the agricultural sector (Sarvananthan 2007). In 2008, Human Rights Watch (2008) estimated that more than 300,000 inhabitants, or 70 percent of the total civilian population, in Vanni were internally displaced people (IDPs), who are now attempting to return to their places of origin. However, inadequate legislative framework and policy support have made it difficult for original property owners to reclaim their land and thereby rebuild their livelihoods (Fonseka and Raheem 2011).

The historical and current administering of the Sri Lankan Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment (1987) does not distribute land decision-making power equally among all government stakeholders. Moreover, of the many laws and amendments on how land is to be managed within the limits of the Constitution, most are so complicated as to be incomprehensible (FAO 2014). For instance, land can be privately owned or held by the central government; however, private land is governed by various tenure regimes, and public land can easily be transferred through grants, permits, or leasing programs. Public land is usually under the Land Development Ordinance (1935, as amended), the State Lands Ordinance (1949), and the Land Grants (Special Provisions) Act (1979) (FAO 2014). Furthermore, the power to grant land to citizens can be given only by the central government, even though the Thirteenth Amendment was created to devolve land powers to elected provincial officials. According to the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, land is a provincial council subject and the “government shall make available to every provincial council state [national government–owned] land within the province required by such council … [and] the provincial council shall administer, control, and utilize such state land, in accordance with the laws and statutes governing the matter” (Sri Lankan Parliament 1987, Appendix 2 1:2).

This amendment allowed the provincial councils certain autonomy in decision making with regards to land rights, land tenure, transfer and alienation of land, land use, land settlement, and land improvement (Fonseka and Raheem 2010; Fonseka and Jegatheeswaran 2014). Nevertheless, land continues to be held tightly by the central government. To illustrate further, the Thirteenth Amendment (1987) allows the central government to transfer land at will and on the recommendation of the relevant provincial council to any individual or organization, giving greater power to the provincial councils (Fonseka and Raheem 2010; Fonseka and Jegatheeswaran 2014). However, it also prohibits provincial councils from disposing of and allocating land to citizens without the approval of the president, making the central government the dominant power in decision making. Furthermore, the amendment also calls for the establishment of a national land commission responsible for developing a national land policy for land owned by the central government (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). However, no such commission was created, and as a result Sri Lanka does not have any sort of comprehensive national policy on land (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). The failure to fully implement the amendment raises serious concerns about the central government’s level of commitment to land reform, adversely affecting the livelihoods of people living within the region of Vanni and caught between these complex laws (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; de Silva et al. 2011).

In the absence of policy reforms, the central government has chosen an unconventional approach to solving the wide variety of land problems in northern Sri Lanka, addressing most of them through Cabinet Memorandum 11/0737/533//015 (Regularize Land Management in the Northern and Eastern Provinces), passed in April 2011, and Land Circular 2011/04 (Regulating the Activities Regarding Management of Lands in the Northern and Eastern Provinces), issued by the land commissioner general in July 2011. The primary aim of these documents is to identify any issues associated with landownership and competing land claims, and to accelerate the process of finding a solution to these problems (MLLDS 2014). In addition, the circular also aims to establish a process to examine land claims and prioritize the distribution of land to individuals who were displaced from their places of origin during the war (MLLDS 2014).

However, the process of land resettlement and distribution has become highly militarized, reflected in the Land Circular document, allowing members of the Sri Lankan army the authority to be involved in land-related issues and even supersede the decisions of civil administrative bodies (Korf 2004; Saparamadu and Lall 2014; Fonseka and Jegatheeswaran 2014). The military’s active role in land

15

administration has made it harder for local governments to perform their duties without deferring to higher-level government authorities. This difficulty has added to the existing trend of bureaucratizing and aggravating land issues (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). As a result, provincial and district governments that have no real power over land policies are involved in resolving competing land claims without the power to provide a real solution. This lack of organization and transparency regarding land administration, land legislations, and policies have made many inhabitants of the Vanni region apprehensive about the future of their land and the security of their livelihoods (Fonseka and Raheem 2011).

Competition for Land with the Central Government Sri Lanka’s numerous land-related issues were only further aggravated by the central government’s own agenda to obtain land for military and cultural colonization as well as infrastructure development (Klopp 2002, Mittal 2015). Despite eight years since the end of the civil war, military occupation in the northern province continues to be exceptionally high, and is in fact expanding (Sarvananthan 2007; MRG 2011; Gunasekara et al 2016, Mittal 2015). Indeed, military personnel have been integrated and normalized into the civil society of the Vanni region. There is still no clear indication from the military on their removal from these occupied areas (Aulakh 2015). For example, civilian duties of the army include building and running resorts on occupied land (Aulakh 2015; Mittal 2015; Fraser, Mousseau, and Mittal 2017) and even cultivating crops and seeds such as in their new Manik Farm in Vavuniya (Sri Lanka Army 2017). In 2011, it was estimated that the ratio of military personnel to civilians was 1:3 in the Vanni region, which was considerably higher than the 1:11 ratio found in the Jaffna peninsula (MRG 2011). Furthermore, the military continues to rapidly take over civil administrative procedures, such as paying salary to teachers, in the north and has replaced many authoritative positions with retired high-ranking military personnel who were of Sinhalese descent (MRG 2011; ICG 2012). Due to this militarization of civil administration, the local government authorities had lost control over day-to-day decision making, especially with regard to the reallocation of land to returning Tamil IDPs. Moreover, the increased military presence in the Vanni region resulted in a culture of fear. Many villages were kept under the tight vigilance and scrutiny of the military, and civil activities, such as farming, could not take place without permission from the army (MRG 2011; Fonseka and Jegatheeswaran 2014).

The increased military presence in Vanni has also resulted in another, much larger, issue of land appropriation. In Kilinochchi District, many public and private properties were seized during the war and used by the military to build camps and other military structures (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). In many cases, the military acquired these lands after driving off the original landowners, even though they possessed legal deeds to the properties (Senathiraja 2014). In other situations, the army actively grabbed fertile agricultural land to build military bases, depriving farmers of their livelihoods (Lindberg and Herath 2014). In addition, the government started grabbing land for infrastructure development in the north, placing it under the umbrella term of high-security zones (HSZs). HSZs were originally highly restricted buffer zones of strategic military importance during the war (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). Despite the end of war, the government continued to sanction HSZs, in fact building 2 new military bases, in the north through land grabs (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; Gunasekara et al 2016). Many of these HSZs are in some of the area’s most fertile agricultural lands and have been highly barricaded by military checkpoints. The Government of Sri Lanka has professed that the military has set up 12 economic farms within the Kilinochchi district, which has adversely impacted farmers in the region and induced water scarcity for surrounding communities (The Maatram Foundation 2015) By one estimate, more than 26,000 people have been unable to return to their lands due to of the military occupation or government-instigated development projects (Lindberg and Herath 2014). Thus, Tamils continued to struggle to reclaim their lives and livelihoods in the north (ICG 2012).

16

The Institutional Subsystem in Northern Sri Lanka This section assesses the capacity of Sri Lanka’s institutional subsystem, examining how well the system can transfer food from producers to consumers. It investigates how institutions, such as government agencies, regulatory organizations, data collection systems, and markets, cope with adverse effects to function during a crisis.

Limited Access to Fertilizers and Natural Amendments Farmers in postwar Kilinochchi are impoverished. According to the World Food Programme (2012) report Food Security in the North and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka, Kilinochchi has the lowest median monthly income in the country, at 2,189 Sri Lankan rupees (US$14.74) per person, which is lower than the country’s own national poverty line of 3,318 rupees per person per month (US$22.34). Consequently, farmers in Kilinochchi struggle to purchase fertilizers for their paddy fields; yet they continue to do so because they are too financially insecure to wait for harvests that can be cultivated without agrochemical inputs. Many farmers echoed the sentiments this farmer from Kanakambikaikulam expressed in a semi-structured interview:

[Fertilizer] is expensive, but it is easier to use because you just have to mix it with water and spray it on the banana plantations. You can’t get good harvests with traditional methods of farming nowadays. What you put in today, you can only profit from the next year. But if you want profit immediately, you need to use some mineral fertilizers, such as urea, which will give you immediate results.

However, despite agrochemical inputs, farmers said they were still obtaining poor harvests because of existing soil infertility in their fields, which they directly connected to their current fertilizer-intensive farming methods. The use of agrochemicals annihilates beneficial soil organisms, soil nutrients, insects, and fungi that play a key role in crop production (Thrupp 2000). After prolonged exposure to agrochemicals, the soil becomes degraded and crop outputs are reduced (Thrupp 2000), forcing farmers to increase inputs to maintain the same level of production. Subsequently, farmers are unable to return to traditional forms of farming because soils that have been subjected to agrochemical regimes require five years to fully recover the lost soil organisms and minerals that define fertile soils (Speir and Ross 2002). This long process of soil recovery, combined with farmers’ dependence upon agriculture to fulfill their immediate economic needs, has deterred them from switching back to traditional farming methods. As a result, farmers in Kilinochchi continue to struggle to maintain their livelihoods and obtain adequate harvests, a situation that makes them financially insecure. Yet despite their financial insecurity, Kilinochchi farmers stated that they had renewed purchase of fertilizers for their fields in hopes of better harvests the following year. Provision of extension services has not resolved this dilemma faced by farmers, particularly in the North, increasing their vulnerability.

Furthermore, poor harvests mean that farmers have been unable to provide enough food for their families and were therefore forced to purchase food. Vhurumuku and colleagues (2012) stated that the average household in Kilinochchi spends 51 percent of its income on food purchases, the largest expenditure for the region. Farmers’ ability to sustain their families has become dependent on unaffordable food purchases (World Food Programme 2014). Moreover, farmers in Kilinochchi are dependent on agrochemicals due to the lack of manure production caused by limited livestock in the region and the decline of silvopastoral methods. The institutional capacity gap for provision of information and knowledge to farmers based on their needs has also been a major issue for Sri Lanka. The civil war caused a further breakdown of the already low institutional capacity in this regard.

17

Institutional Arrangement for Resource Management and Allocation Landlessness continues to be a persistent problem for IDPs and all inhabitants of the Northern Province who do not have complete legal ownership and control over their land, including those whose lands are occupied by the Sri Lankan army (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; Fonseka 2016). In Sri Lanka, approximately 85 percent of all land is owned by the central government (Bastian 2009), of which 34 percent is considered as agricultural lands, and of that only 13 percent held in private hands (Zainudeen 2016). Subsequently, the distribution of landownership varied throughout the districts of the Northern Province. For example, land within Jaffna District is predominantly held in private hands, whereas land in Kilinochchi District is mostly owned by the central government (Fonseka and Raheem 2011).

It was within the Kilinochchi region that individuals found themselves contesting with government officials over landownership. This problem was exacerbated by the different factions that administered land in the north of the country over the three decades of conflict. Many laws regarding land regularization and ownership were not enforced during the war, especially in areas that were controlled by the LTTE. In these areas, the LTTE acted as the de facto government, providing (along with the civil administration at any given time) documents for plots without any regard for whether the land was under government or private ownership (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; Bastian 2009). Those practices were accepted in the areas held by the LTTE. However, current government officials have challenged the validity of these documents, officially branding the contesting individuals as encroachers on government land and stripping them of any rights to the land. In fact, regardless of their status as IDPs or as former residents of the north, these people have no voice, security, or ability to take action on their lands to improve their livelihoods (Saparamadu and Lall 2014), irrespective of their previous landownership claims. In these instances, the people became landless and found themselves without home, land tenure, and livelihoods, forcing them into poverty, insecurity, and at times, migration to other areas. This forced poverty only added to the number of poor people living in the Northern Province, estimated at about 85 percent of the population and predominantly of Tamil heritage (Sarvananthan 2007).

In addition, many people who lived in the Northern Province had no awareness of how land rights and ownership worked within the province (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; Klopp 2002). Many people in the Northern Province believed that living on the land was proof of ownership, a misconception largely driven by the different authorities that administered land in the area during the war (Fonseka and Raheem 2011). Along with the other issues, this belief placed people returning to their land in the north in a delicate and precarious position, threatening their access to sustainable livelihoods and household food security. Hence, landlessness continues to be a major issue in the northern part of Sri Lanka, affecting the transformation of the food system toward better resilience.

Institutional subsystem factors related to food system resilience are detailed in Table 5.2 and summarized in Box 5.2.

18

Table 5.2 Factors affecting the institutional subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system Institutional subsystem (intermediate factors)

State 1 (prewar) State 2 (during conflict) State 3 (postwar) Potential interventions

Devolution process The Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment assigns land powers to provincial councils.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) became a de facto government to fight for Tamil Eelam sovereignty. It issued land permits, redistributed property, and offered promises to remove caste and gender barriers in society, the latter enacted within LTTE as women cadres increased. However, ongoing violence prevented actualization and impacted lives. People were displaced in high numbers.

Sri Lanka’s national government holds centralized authority. Land in high-security zones is being given to Sinhalese farmers, Buddhist temples are being built in majority non-Buddhist areas, and there are efforts to scatter minorities from their holds in the north.

Institutional reforms are needed to ensure the effectiveness of devolution to Northern Province. Civil society should have institutional power to effect change and increase capacity.

Institutional architecture and capacity

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka traces its beginning to British colonialism. Majority Sinhalese held power while minority Tamil wanted their own sovereignty, eventually leading to civil war.

Complete breakdown of institutional relations and mechanisms affected the food system. Agricultural land was lost to security force use and LTTE combat in the region. Internal displacement of people onto marginal lands further endangered them and worsened food insecurity.

Occupied land slowly being released but with severe interventions and restrictions from the central government. In some cases, approval of the president is needed while army facilitates land disputes. Land Circulars provide land permits and to accelerate the process of solving landownership disputes. Landlessness and land tenure and ownership issues continue to prevail, despite the end of war.

The Northern Province needs to demilitarize and demobilize army

19

Table 5.2 Continued Institutional subsystem (intermediate factors)

State 1 (prewar) State 2 (during conflict) State 3 (postwar) Potential interventions

Research, education, and extension system

Farmers could be self-sufficient using traditional farming methods.

De facto administration by rebel groups allocated resources depending on the need of the conflict.

Military and security forces continue to play an active role in selected areas of institutional architecture, such as doing municipal work. Farmers depend on agrochemicals for paddy cultivation.

There is a great need for building institutional and human capacity for implementing policies and programs. Greater participation and power sharing by women is needed to recalibrate power now that more households are headed by widowed women. Civil society groups should encourage women to participate and should continue monitoring government reconciliation activities.

Market institutions and risk reduction and insurance mechanisms

Local markets existed with traditional farming methods; however, no risk or insurance mechanism was in place.

Main and feeder roads were destroyed, and communication between northern and southern areas of Sri Lanka was deliberately broken down. An economic embargo was imposed in the northern and eastern regions, severely impacting the flow of goods and services (such as gasoline).

Lack of organization and transparency remains in program administration and implementation. Institutional mechanisms are reverting from the LTTE to the central government.

Demilitarization of the region and greater freedom of movement will increase farmers’ access to markets, and supporting Tamil farmers’ agricultural production.

20

Table 5.2 Continued Institutional subsystem (intermediate factors)

State 1 (prewar) State 2 (during conflict) State 3 (postwar) Potential interventions

Local and social networks

Communities operated through networks of language, religion, and caste. Still, there were greater linkages between majority Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims (including sharing of food and customs).

War and ongoing conflict caused emigration and internal displacement of people. Intercaste marriages were allowed to avoid conscription by the LTTE. Tamil-speaking Muslims were evicted from Jaffna Peninsula.

People coming back to their villages lack a voice, and social organization and local networks are weak. Security forces are in charge of allotting land back to people with land deeds. Tamil-speaking Muslims have returned to Jaffna, and caste relations have returned to status quo. Access to land and homes in northern Sri Lanka remain disputed, however, underpinning the lack of social cohesion and food security.

Cultural, social, and religious freedom, as well as rights, should be enhanced for social cohesion. Civil societies of Tamil-speaking Muslims should convene, consult, and implement community-driven solutions for land issues and reconciliation efforts. Oppressed castes should be resettled on land from their area of origin in the Northern and Eastern provinces.

Peace-building processes and institutions

International arrangements for peace negotiations failed, which restarted civil war. A reform of the security forces failed in the 1990s.

Property reallocation and dispute resolution were managed by the LTTE through its de facto government. Tamil-speaking Muslims were expelled from the Northern Province. The government’s paramilitary and military forces seized land in the Northern and Eastern provinces and turned it into high-security zones.

The institutional arrangements for dispute resolution and the process of reclaiming property allow continued military presence. Death or disappearance of permit holders remains an issue, as does lost documentation.

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, a domestic body charged with reviewing the war, has published its report, but most recommendations are not yet implemented. The UN Human Rights Council is pushing for an independent, international investigation of war crimes and violations. The central government must devise and implement measures to protect the rights of minorities.

21

Box 5.2 Summary of the institutional subsystem’s evolution toward improved resilience

Inability to Market Farm Produce Farmers in Kilinochchi face serious setbacks in trying to sell their products on the market, including lack of access to markets and reduced sales prices for their products caused by competition with external producers. Market access is related to the distance the farmer has to travel to get to the market (Buckmaster 2012). Interviewed farmers in Kilinochchi said produce markets far from their homes affect their ability to sell their products and earn an income. Accordingly, Immink and Alarcon (1993) asserted that lack of market access, changes in farmer harvest and agrochemical prices, market failures, and poor and inefficient marketing institutions reduce a farmer’s annual profits. One interviewee from Malaiyaalapuram made this observation:

Look at those cowpeas. It took us a lot of time and energy to plant them, but we are unable to market them because we have no way of taking them to the market. The government is supposed to help us with marketing the product, but they don’t and as a result we are suffering from it.

Prewar: Local governments within the Northern Province were alienated from major central-government decisions and policy-making processes, and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1987), responsible for devolving land distribution power to the Northern Provincial Council, was not implemented. As a result, this predominantly agrarian region had inadequate funds to build capacity in local institutional and market systems. Alienation also resulted in the further breakdown of government ties and led to internal divisions between regions, whereby the majority disregarded the rights, autonomy, and culture of the minority, leading to an irreparable ethnic divide that ultimately led to the civil war as the internal arrangements for peace negotiations failed. During the war: The regional economic embargo, along with seizures by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), decreased supplies of many essential goods, and agricultural production drastically declined for farmers in the Northern and Eastern provinces. Farmers also faced difficulty in accessing markets due to road blockages and lack of institutional support (Sarvananthan 2007). Rebel groups, acting as a de facto local government, allocated resources depending on the needs of the conflict. Many people, particularly farmers, were displaced. Postwar: This period ushered in greater autonomy in decision making and relaxed the severe restrictions imposed by the government. Tamil-speaking Muslims returning to the north, however, found that their land deeds issued by the LTTE were considered illegal; land was reallocated to high-security zones or the Sinhalese population (The Maatram Foundation 2015). Militarization of the north increased, with former soldiers becoming police, their tasks ranging from carrying out municipal work to deciding land disputes and issuing deeds. The Sri Lankan government issued the Lessons Learnt Reconciliation Commission report, which discounted military violations of international humanitarian laws (Thiranagama 2014). Access to land and land permits was also affected by caste relations because most people in the IDP camps came from oppressed castes (Silva, Sivapragasam, and Paramsothys 2009; Kuganathan 2014; Lall 2015) and were among the last to be resettled. Affected people continue to feel insecure within their villages, still living in a culture of fear. Recommendation: The central government should devolve powers to the provincial councils, and civil society should play a stronger role in community-based solutions and reconciliation efforts along caste, religious, and gender lines to increase institutional capacity at all levels of the government. We further recommend that the central government not only consult but also empower local populations for better delivery of programs and services, and develop policies that account for equitable distribution of resources to enhance the cultural, social, and religious rights of impacted people. Finally, the government should continue to investigate war atrocities.

22

All of these factors have contributed to increasing farmers’ vulnerability to food insecurity in the district. Additionally, Kilinochchi farmers reported that they are under market pressure to sell their produce at a low price, stemming from the economic liberalization program advocated by the central government (Herath 2014).

Economic liberalization policies are expected to increase market growth and reduce poverty within a country (IMF 2001). However, the current agricultural policies of Sri Lanka have the opposite effect on small-scale farmers (Herath 2014). Instead of procuring an income, farmers in Kilinochchi say they have to sell their produce at reduced prices that force them to lose profit. Furthermore, most farmers say they are actively competing with goods imported by the government that were produced with fewer inputs, thereby artificially depressing prices for local goods, as another Malaiyaalapuram farmer said in an interview:

The marketability of our own organic produce is affected by the government’s importing produce that has been grown chemically. As a result, our own produce, which is smaller in comparison to theirs, doesn’t sell as well.

Additionally, due to its economic liberalization policies, the central government provided no social infrastructure support in the form of energy, seeds, tools, inputs, or monetary subsidies to sustain struggling farmers in Kilinochchi during the war or in the postwar period. Recently, the Northern Provincial Council guaranteed farmers that it would purchase their rice harvest, but it has yet to follow through with this promise (Srinivasan 2014), as this Malaiyaalapuram farmer described:

The government tells us they will purchase all our rice but that isn’t true; it doesn’t look like they are going to purchase everything. If we take it to them, they tell us that our rice has fungus or something else.… They are making up excuses.

Accordingly, the inability of agrarian households to generate enough profit to cover their own living, food, and farming expenses has resulted in high levels of debt and food insecurity within Kilinochchi District (Vhurumuka et al. 2012).

Institutional and Ethnic Integration and Resource Conflict The Tamil-speaking northern districts have slowly started becoming more culturally colonized through Sinhalization—a process through which the language and culture of the Sinhalese people, who are Buddhist, is being incorporated into the everyday lives of everyone living in the region (Fonseka and Raheem 2011; ICG 2012). Sinhalization in the north includes renaming streets and creating signboards in Sinhala, erecting monuments for Sinhalese war heroes, constructing war museums, and building Buddhist monuments that cater only to the Buddhist-Sinhalese people, in a predominantly non-Buddhist community (ICG 2012; Halliday 2014). These blatant acts of Sinhalization not only are symbolic of postcolonial Sri Lanka, which saw similar large-scale government-sponsored land colonization projects in the north that favored Sinhalese migrants (McGilvray and Raheem 2007; The Social Architects 2012), but they also impinge on the available land resources for returning Tamils. According to Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran, “Out of a total land mass of 65,619 km2, Tamil people inhabited 18,880 km2 of land in the north and east, but after May 2009, the defense forces have occupied more than 7,000 km2 of land owned by Tamil people” (cited in Sumanthiran 2011), in an obvious government-aided land-grab initiative. This situation has resulted in greater vulnerability for the Tamil population, making it even more difficult for them to own land and access essential resources to earn a livelihood.

The Food Production Subsystem in Northern Sri Lanka Community food security is defined by Hamm and Bellows as “as a situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice” (2003,1). Community food security (CFS) self-sufficient system for local communities to produce and access culturally appropriate food (Bellows

23

and Hamm 2003). It is vital to use food sovereignty as an additional framework that that helps to understand the political economy of socio-economic conditions such as land rights as aspects of food system that empower small holder farmers and create autonomous locally owned and driven food system. According to the Food Security Atlas by World Food Programme (2015), factors that lead to high food insecurity are over-dependency on free market mechanisms coupled with constricted means of earning livelihoods. A common indicator amongst the poorest households is to purchase food items at markets that are subject to fluctuating prices on essential foods (Krishnamurthy et al. 2014). This dependence on markets can be created in part from lack of access, rights and usage of land for self-sufficient farming systems. It is a cyclical system attributed to the forced displacement of local people that erodes the social capacity needed for a functioning and locally owned food system.

This section examines the technical capacity of Sri Lanka’s food production subsystem to adapt to physical and environmental changes in agriculture and contribute to increased resilience for the food system. Northern Sri Lanka has food production subsystems that include paddy cultivation and home gardens.

Paddy Cultivation versus Home Gardens The prewar agriculture system in the northern region was dominated by paddy cultivation, which has remained the mainstay for smallholder farmers. The supply of necessary inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides was interrupted by the war, and as a result, the system of agricultural services broke down. In order to meet food and nutritional requirements, households began to focus on home gardens.

The cultivation of home gardens is one of the oldest forms of agriculture to spread throughout the Asian continent and has been described as an agroforestry system of high ecological and social value (Kumar and Nair 2006; Linger 2014). Essentially, home gardens are important food systems that combat food insecurity in many tropical countries around the world. In addition, these gardens alleviate micronutrient deficiencies and provide families in rural communities with a diverse range of fruits and vegetables that would otherwise be inaccessible to them due to their limited income and distance from food markets (FAO 2010a; Devi and Das 2012; Kumar and Nair 2006; Galhena, Freed, and Maredia 2013). Home gardens also have many socioeconomic benefits that contribute towards nutritional security, food security, energy requirements, and income generation even within densely populated regions (Landreth and Saito 2014; Kumar and Nair 2006). Additionally, home gardens are remarkably flexible. Their structure and composition can be modified to meet the different livelihood needs (for both household consumption and commercial use) of rural farmers, regardless of the size of their property (Peyre et al. 2006). The ability to modify home garden cultivation to meet the various household needs of rural communities is important to maintain food security in individual households (Kumar and Nair 2006).

Currently, many rural areas in northern Sri Lanka are undergoing major changes within their agricultural sector (Karunaratne 2003). Specifically, commercialization and globalization of Sri Lanka’s economic market has resulted in a food system that is dependent on machinery and external inputs for viable profit (Kumar and Nair 2004; Karunaratne 2003; Landreth and Saito 2014). Furthermore, the Northern Province’s economic market has evolved into a predominantly service-oriented sector whereas, prior to the war, agriculture made the greatest contribution to the country’s gross domestic product (Sarvananathan 2007; Karunaratne 2003; Sri Lanka, DCS 2011). This service sector accounts for more than 44 percent of total employment in northern Sri Lanka, which has resulted in changes to traditional family-run farming systems, including home gardens, within this region (Sri Lanka, DCS 2011). Even though 35 percent of households within Kilinochchi District cultivate home gardens, the rapid increase of employment in the service sector raises serious questions about the permanence of these home gardens as well as food security for households living in the area (FAO 2010a; Kumar and Nair 2006). Moreover, three decades of civil war impacted traditional agricultural practices, leading to a substantial negative impact on the once thriving food systems. Table 5.3 details and Box 5.3 summarizes the food production subsystem’s potential contribution to the resilience of the country’s food system.

24

Table 5.3 Factors affecting the production subsystem and its contribution to a resilient food system Production subsystem (immediate factors)

State 1 (prewar) State 2 (during conflict) State 3 (postwar) Potential interventions

Farm production—small householder focus

Predominantly an agriculture-based society Smallholder paddy cultivation was main form of agriculture

Traditional agricultural practices forgotten Reduced agricultural production due to embargo of goods and farmers’ having to abandon land More reliance on home gardens to meet nutrition and food security

Emphasis on service-sector employment, threatening home gardens and agricultural production for food security.

The country has an opportunity to modernize production agriculture by diversifying from uncompetitive crops and introducing high-value native fruit and vegetable varieties. Reintegrating home gardens will promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture.

Household and social protection, and transitional support for production

Limited assistance and poor delivery of services from central government to support livelihood opportunities and increase social protection during times of vulnerability

Displacement of people and institutional collapse, resulting in deterioration of the agriculture production system

Some organizational support for farm families to get back to normal production cycles

Crop, livestock, and fisheries development should focus on household food security, nutrition, and poverty.

Community-based livelihood system and employment generation

Communities mostly practicing traditional farming using indigenous knowledge in cropping systems Increased farmer dependency on agrochemicals during Green Revolution; shift toward mechanized farming

Displacement of communities, resulting in collapse of paddy cultivation as a major and modern production system Decline in nonfarm employment due to reduced demand

Livelihood security not assured due to lack of access to land and resources Slow, delayed, and ongoing resettlement of internally displaced people onto customary lands Limited comeback of nonfarm activities

Food system–based interventions, such as optimizing land use, improving efficiency of resource management, and increasing the participation of civil society in development initiatives, will increase the skills and capacity of communities to address their challenges and provide employment and livelihood opportunities.

Access to knowledge and adoption of innovations

Modern high-yielding varieties and inputs brought into dry-zone farming practices through Green Revolution Farmers starting to veer away from traditional farming practices

Setbacks to both traditional and modern production systems due to civil war

Increase in use of modern agrotechnology to increase crop production for better profits; success limited by poor institutional support

Revamping local extension and advisory services will improve community and research systems.

25

Table 5.3 Continued Production subsystem (immediate factors)

State 1 (prewar) State 2 (during conflict) State 3 (postwar) Potential interventions

Asset building for production resilience

Traditional system of asset accumulation (labor, livestock, capital) not specifically focused on production system (that is, policies and institutional factors not conducive to equitable income production)

Irrigation system and water sources damaged during war period Assets damaged, lost, and destroyed throughout the conflict

Asset building threatened due to lack of property rights in government-sanctioned high-security zones on arable land Release of some land to people

The country should introduce supported special programs that will build productive assets including livestock, fisheries, and nonfarm supportive services, as well as irrigation systems and mechanization for labor-intensive farming activities.

Access to healthcare, social services, and other services

Extension system with linkages to research and education reasonably well established after the formation of provincial departments of agriculture in 1989

Breakdown of access to rural services in all spheres Halt of rural and production services

Increased external inputs into agriculture, such as farm machinery and agrochemicals Drought conditions with inadequate supporting institutions, adversely impacting farmers and increasing food insecurity Water table in many areas of the northern region rapidly dropping because of drought and overuse

The government needs to improve access to rural and extension services that improve the production process; provide access to improved seed and planting materials; implement postharvest and processing services; and support the growth and development of marketing infrastructure, market-driven research, extension, and education and training programs around agriculture.

Production-oriented gender relations and mainstreaming

Traditional production system with both men and women participating Men engaged in plowing, sowing, threshing, transporting goods to the market, and other heavy-duty activities Women engaged in 30 percent of all farming activities, with most of their energy spent on home-based activities

Enlistment of both young men and women by the rebels, moving gender relations toward better equality and empowerment of women

Women’s empowerment by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam diminished by violence of government repression and war Unprecedented death toll of men during the conflict, resulting in high numbers of female-headed households

The production system should include women equally in all aspects of agricultural activities, empowering them through equitable gender policies that promote their long-term mainstreaming and involvement in food security and production-driven systems.

Access to productive land and natural resources

Landownership not well defined or documented Resource sharing based on customary system

Displacement of people from their land and production activities, resulting in reduced access and eventual loss of property and resource ownership

Farming communities unable to reclaim their land resources due to presence of artillery, landmines, and other war machinery left behind in heavily guarded high-security zones

Normalizing the process of land and property rights, and reducing uncertainty in ownership will make resource market functioning more efficient.

Source: Authors.

26

Box 5.3 Summary of the production subsystem’s evolution toward improved resilience

Source: Authors.

The Modern Farming System Rice was and continues to be the most important economic agricultural crop for the national market in Sri Lanka (Domros 1974). Cultivation of this grain in the country began in 800 BC and has continued to play a significant role in providing food, income, and employment to its population since then (Jayawardene 2003; FAO 1999). Sri Lanka has been estimated to have about 2,800 different cultivars of rice that grow on a wide variety of soil, with natural tolerance to iron toxicity and pest infestation (FAO 1999). Sri Lankan soils, especially within the dry zones, have a natural abundance of iron, which has often led to iron toxicity (Wickramasinghe and Wijewardena 2003), caused by an excess of soluble Fe2+ (reduced iron) that accumulates in flooded soils (Becker and Asch 2005). Iron toxicity in paddy fields can decrease rice harvests anywhere from 12 to 100 percent (Becker and Asch 2005; Sahrawat 2006) and thereby impact food security within the dry-zone regions. Hence, growing indigenous and locally adapted rice in the northern region is an important area of production in Sri Lanka.

In the 1980s, the Northern and Eastern provinces generated nearly one-third of the rice production in Sri Lanka, yet only 15 percent of the nation’s population lived in these two provinces (Sarvananthan 2007). Currently 33 percent of all individuals who live in Sri Lanka are employed in the agricultural sector (Sri Lanka, DCS 2011), predominantly within paddy cultivation. However, to date

Prewar: Northern Sri Lanka was predominantly made up of communities that used traditional farming practices. The region received little assistance and few extension services to support rural livelihoods until the Green Revolution, which introduced high-yielding varieties and agrochemicals, inducing the rapid shift to modernized farming practices. Women participated in 30 percent of all farming activities but were mostly relegated to home activities (Wickramasinghe 1993). During the war: Traditional agricultural practices became less common during the conflict period, increasing community reliance on home gardens to meet nutritional security. The hostile war environment reduced paddy production within the region. Assets such as land, livestock, and farm machinery were lost or stolen during the constant displacement event. Fear and oppression led to the massive enlistment of females into the rebel forces, not only empowering them but also resulting in a paradigm shift in how women were viewed, socially and culturally, within the Tamil society (Alison 2003; Alexander 2017). Postwar: Agriculture is no longer profitable. Youth have begun to seek employment within the service sector to earn a livelihood. Some assistance has been provided to returning communities to restart paddy cultivation and other farming activities. However, resettlement of land to returning internally displaced people continues to be slow and delayed, thereby increasing livelihood insecurity within the affected areas. Lack of rights and access to valuable assets has increased farmer dependency on external inputs for crop production. The majority of the households within the impacted areas are headed by widowed women (IRIN 2015; Gomez 2016). Recommendation: Policies and institutions around the production system should be focused on optimizing land and managing it sustainably; introducing high-yielding, profitable native crops into the market; reintegrating home gardens to meet household nutritional security; improving education and research; and supporting growth and development of the marketing infrastructure within the region. Interventions need to improve the capacity of communities to overcome local challenges around the production system. Women should be an empowered and integral part of all new interventions into the farming production system.

27

there are no published data on the percentage of farmers employed in agriculture within Kilinochchi District. Paddy cultivation, a significant source of livelihood in the Northern Province prior to the war, had shaped Sri Lanka’s economy, society, culture, and religion (Jayawardene 2003; IRRI 2014). However, due to the war, levels of paddy cultivation and rice production in the Northern Province have declined. Rice production in the Northern Province made up nearly 12 percent of national production levels in the 1980s but accounted for only 2 percent of total outputs in 2005 (Sarvananthan 2007).

Prior to the Green Revolution, rice was cultivated using indigenous varieties with a long growing season, which were grown during a single season without the use of mineral fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides (Jayawardene 2003). As a result, Sri Lanka was able to sustain the rice consumption of its population as well as export rice to foreign countries. However, with population growth, the demand for rice amplified, so there was a need to increase rice production (Herath 1981). By the late 1960s, with the Green Revolution in full swing, high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice were developed and cultivated mostly by farmers in dry-zone Sri Lanka to increase total rice outputs (Herath 1981; Jayawardene 2003). During this period, the Sri Lankan government encouraged the use of expensive mineral fertilizers and mechanization for rice production (Jayawardene 2003).

Furthermore, the cropping of HYVs and subsequently of new, improved rice varieties resulted in monoculture paddy fields (Jayawardene 2003), which suffered from pest outbreaks, such as bacterial blight (Xanthomonas citri), gall midge (Feltiella acarisuga), and blast (Pyricularia grisea). In response, farmers increased their use of pesticides and herbicides in the field (Jayawardene 2003; Pimental 1996). The increased use of agrochemicals led to soil quality degradation and eventually decreased rice productivity within the dry zone (Pimental 1996). In addition, the Green Revolution transformed the agricultural landscape, affecting the natural biodiversity of rice. It also increased farmers’ dependency on agrochemicals for crop production and contributed to the loss of traditional farming knowledge (Shiva 1993; FAO 1999). Farmers’ dependence on unaffordable agrochemicals, coupled with three decades of war and degraded land, severely impacted the traditional livelihoods and food security of people living in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka.

The Traditional Farming System Self-sufficient traditional forms of farming were prevalent throughout Sri Lanka until British colonization of the island in the late 1700s (Dharmasena 2010). Farmers ensured prolonged land fertility and pest protection for their crops by using traditional methods such as cultivation of traditional rice varieties, use of organic fertilizer (straw, green manure, cow dung, poultry feces, liquid fertilizers), natural weed management through hand weeding and biopesticides, maintaining existing biodiversity, and managing water without creating moisture stress (Dharmasena 2012). Furthermore, farmers incorporated agroforestry practices such as silvopastoral systems with their traditional agricultural practices.

A silvopastoral system is defined as a land-use system wherein trees and livestock are combined on the same tract of land (Nair 1993). After the harvest, the use of livestock on paddy fields allowed farmers the opportunity to naturally control weeds. In addition, the grazing cattle excreted dung and urine, which helped to fertilize and enrich the soil for the next growing season (Dharmasena 2010). Essentially, traditional farming practices were low-input systems that optimized the use of internal (on-farm) inputs and reduced the use of external (off-farm) resources (such as pesticides and fertilizers). The strong focus on internal and on-farm inputs benefited farmers and helped to maintain land integrity with low production costs, low water pollution, reduced pesticide residues in food, reduced overall monetary risk to farmers, and greater short- and long-term profitability of the farm (Poux 2008). However, external factors such as globalization, civil war, open economic policies, and inadequate agricultural policies have forced farmers in Sri Lanka to become more reliant on external inputs for crop production (Dharmasena 2010), a type of farming system that will hereafter be referred to as modern agriculture.

Traditionally, farming systems throughout Sri Lanka were divided into two main types, chena cultivation and paddy cultivation (Sandika and Withana 2010. Chena cultivation, also known as shifting agriculture, was used extensively within the dry zone of Sri Lanka (Sandika and Withana 2010; FAO

28

1999). It depended on rain for irrigation and involved the process of clearing forested land for crops (Ratnasinghne 2002; Dharmasena 1994). Although the exact extent of chena cultivation in the Northern Province is still unknown, by one estimate, nearly 18 percent of Sri Lanka’s land area was under chena cultivation and about 250,000 farming families depended upon it for their livelihoods prior to the war (FAO 1999). Chena cultivation is believed to have been the precursor to more modern agriculture practices, including traditional home gardens and rice paddy cultivation, which constituted the dominant form of agriculture within Kilinochchi District (FAO 1994) before the war. Details on how farmers practiced agriculture during the war are largely missing, and therefore the impact the war had on famers’ livelihoods presents a gap in our current knowledge. In adapting the production subsystem to respond to the needs of Northern and Eastern Provinces, local farmers traditional ecological knowledge would be an important sources to implement, and access to indigenous seeds that lessen reliance to external outputs (Dharmasena 2010; 2012).

Livestock Production System Prior to the war, farmers depended on cows and bulls to fertilize and plow their fields. They relied primarily on bovine manure, tree pruning, and crop residues to replenish soil nutrient and organic matter stocks before the next growing season. Furthermore, farmers in Kilinochchi still universally believe that cattle manure helps keep their soils soft and pliable for root growth. Indeed, studies indicate that cattle manure helps restock organic matter, improve fertility, and increase moisture content in soils (Feng et al. 2013), making water and other nutrients easily accessible during plant growth. Unfortunately, farmers lost their livestock during the multiple displacement events throughout the war period, and with them the ability to fertilize their fields in a sustainable manner, as one Malaiyaalapuram farmer described:

Cows were eliminated during the displacement events. Only one person in the entire village will have a cow but they won’t give us the manure because they’ll need it for themselves. In order to get a good amount of manure we need to spend a whole day collecting [it].

An estimated 50,000 cattle were abandoned during the conflict period, and the central government is only now repatriating them to families in the north (FAO 2010b). However, returning the cows will take multiple years, and in the meantime farmers rely on four-wheeled and two-wheeled tractors to plow their land. Many farmers, like this one from Malaiyaalapuram, have expressed their distaste for using tractors:

During those times, we used to plow the field with cows. We would plant rice and spray herbicides on the land; after three days we would use a wooden plow to till and then level the land, which would control all the weeds in the field. Now it isn’t like that. When you use the tractor to plow the land, the weed and rice grains will come out all at the same time.

In general, plows drawn by oxen are easier to handle than their mechanized counterparts because they are lightweight and maneuverable in paddy fields (Gebresenbet and Kaumbutho 1997). In addition, ox-drawn plows are more efficient at turning soil over, helping to bury weeds and bring new nutrients to the surface for the crops to access, as well as aerating the soil and allowing for better moisture retention (Agroproducts 2008). One Kanakambikaikulam farmer expressed the benefits of ox-drawn plows:

Even though we use machines now, they only plow 2½ to 3 inches into the soil. The iron plows that are attached to the bulls dig at least ½ foot into the ground. As a result, the soil is turned quite well; that is, the soil from the bottom is brought up to the top. So that is the best for agriculture.

Farmers in the region view purchasing new oxen—which can cost up to 60,000 to 70,000 rupees (US$404–US$471), the equivalent of purchasing a tractor—as prohibitively expensive.

29

In summary, farmers’ inability to access natural fertilizers and their dependence on expensive agrochemicals has impacted their ability to maintain their agrarian livelihoods as well as to achieve food security for themselves and their families. Furthermore, their continued dependence on agrochemicals has made it difficult for them to become self-sufficient in their farming practices (Altieri 2002). As a result, their land has continued to degrade and they have continued to struggle to obtain some form of profit from their harvests, while still expending large portions of their income on unaffordable food, which makes them poorer and more food insecure. According to a survey, about 20 percent of Sri Lankans living in the Northern Province are food insecure (World Food Programme 2009). Improper management of soil and persistent water scarcity prevalent in the region further aggravate this food insecurity.

Inability to Optimize Agricultural Potential of Land The farmers in Kilinochchi have rich traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which can be broadly described as a “body of information about the interconnected elements of the natural environment, which traditional indigenous people have been taught, from generation to generation, to respect and give thanks for” (Menzies and Butler 2001, 6). Traditional ecological knowledge is locally developed and land based, provides important knowledge of biological species, and promotes the belief that humans are part of the landscape instead of being separate from it (Mulder, Coppollilo and Coppollilo 2005; Shiva 1997). This knowledge is unique in that it is fluid and can easily be revised to suit local conditions.

However, current insecurity in agrarian livelihoods has prevented many farming households from completely using traditional ecological knowledge on their farm fields, though interviewed farmers did report using such knowledge in cultivating their home gardens. Nevertheless, some farmers still try to use traditional knowledge to prepare the land for cropping, but lack of access to tree species, such as Thespesia populnea, that are beneficial for replenishing soil organic matter and nutrients often hinders progress. These trees dwindled due to large-scale deforestation events during the conflict period. In interviews, residents working in Kilinochchi mentioned that in the 1980s and early 1990s government soldiers cleared large tracts of dry forests in the north to prevent LTTE soldiers from using them as camouflage. Only 24 percent of land in Sri Lanka remains covered by forests (Green and Gunawardena 1997). Furthermore, many traditional fertilizers that were prepared by farmers in Kilinochchi to be used in the field required large amounts of cow manure and urine, which have now become inaccessible as well. In addition, farmers in Kilinochchi say that preparing traditional fertilizers takes time, energy, and resources that they no longer have. For example, one Malaiyaalapuram farmer explained the mechanisms of creating traditional pesticides for his home garden crops:

I use cow urine, neem seeds, Gliricidia, and cow manure, and place them all in the container for about 15 days. Afterwards, I separate it into three parts, and take those parts to mix with water and spray [it on the crops]. I have to drain the mixture first before I can mix it with the water before spraying.

However, the farmer admitted that this process would be impossible to replicate on his 1-hectare (2.5-acre) farm field. Consequently, farmers in the region depend on agrochemicals to fertilize their fields even though they realize that, as one Malaiyaalapuram farmer stated, it is not as profitable as using traditional fertilizers:

When I used to sow salad, greens using their [chemicals] I found that I wasn’t even able to harvest about 150 grams. However, making my own fertilizers using traditional methods, I found that I was able to harvest about ½ kilogram. It’s very profitable.

Hence, not only are farmers unable to use their traditional ecological knowledge, but they also cannot afford to adopt new and sustainable production techniques due to the lack of institutional and financial infrastructure to support them. Hence, along with the problem of land allocation, the inability to maximize the potential of existing agricultural land increases the problems of Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector.

30

Inadequate Management of Soil and Water Scarcity Farmers in Kilinochchi do not have the proper resources, time, or energy to properly cultivate their land before each growing season due to the lack of natural amendments and access to plows and cows. Most farmers in the region said they lease a tractor as needed to till their land because it would be too expensive to purchase. According to Snapp and Pound (2008), tilling the land properly is essential for eliminating weeds in the field and enhancing soil nutrient availability for crop production. On smallholder farms, such as those found in Kilinochchi, tilling was traditionally done with ox-drawn plows and other farm implements, many of which were lost with the onset and continuation of war. In addition, farmers in Kilinochchi are too impoverished to employ farm laborers to help them till the land (Karunagoda 2004) and, as a result, depend upon themselves and their families to sow and harvest the land. The children, though, often do not help their parents on the farm because they are too busy getting an education and going to work elsewhere, as two women interviewed in Kanakambikaikulam and Thiruvaiyaar, respectively, reported:

They were studying then got jobs in the government, and as a result were never interested in farming even though we ourselves farmed.

I doubt the future generation will continue to practice farming, because my children won’t even help me while I’m farming. If they won’t help in the field while I’m doing it, I doubt they will do it by themselves.

Studies in Sri Lanka have indicated that small-scale farming is becoming so unprofitable as to no longer be a feasible form of income (Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2014). As a result, employment in the agricultural sector has decreased as more and more farmers and their families seek work within the rising service sector (Sri Lanka, DCA 2011). Despite the increasing trend of employment within the service sector, unemployment rates, between 7.3 and 9.3 percent in Kilinochchi, remain the highest in the country (Sri Lanka, DCS 2011). This situation is representative of rural families’ being forced out of their traditional livelihoods due to lack of profit.

Poor profits are also attributed to water scarcity in the region. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (2014) reported that more than 1.8 million Sri Lankans have been severely affected by drought since 2013. According to OCHA (2014), people living in the Kilinochchi region are the most vulnerable to these drought events due to poverty and inability to protect themselves from climatic crisis. One farmer in Malaiyaalapuram noted the changes in rain patterns and described how he lost his rice grains due to the drought:

In the past, by September 15th we saw rain, but today we can only see rain after the 5th of December. In the past, by the 15th of September we had to have sown our beans. Now, the rains are coming later and later. This year I lost two paddy fields’ worth of rice grain twice.

In addition, when farmers in Kilinochchi lose their crops to drought in one year, it becomes harder for them to sow crops the next year due to lack of capital, as this Malaiyaalapuram farmer stated:

Because of the lack of water, we lost 30,000–40,000 rupees in the field. Then we lost another 15,000 rupees in the garden.

Almost all of Sri Lanka’s agricultural activities depend on major reservoirs for irrigation. Due to droughts, almost all of them have been completely depleted (OCHA 2014). In addition, all the irrigation systems in Kilinochchi are damaged due to the civil war (IDA 2013). As a result, farmers are unable to harvest enough rice for both the market and their own needs. The ongoing drought has caused anxiety for farmers and added to food insecurity in the region (OCHA 2014; IRIN 2012). In fact, the World Food Programme Food Security Analysis reported that due to erratic rainfall, “agricultural livelihoods in the dry zone will become unfeasible and unsustainable,” and estimated that 768,000 people are currently food insecure in Kilinochchi and the Northern Province (WFP 2014, 2) To make matters worse, the Northern

31

Provincial Council is planning to divert water from the Iranamadu Tank, a major reservoir in Kilinochchi, to areas in Jaffna (Srinivasan 2014). Many farmers, like this one in Thiruvaiyaar, condemned the move because it will only add to the water crisis presently affecting the region:

We had members from the water management group in Kilinochchi who came here to ask for signatures to take water to Jaffna. We didn’t sign it. I told them we didn’t have enough water to irrigate our own fields. Then I also asked them to give us the water to cultivate our land, and whatever water is left over from us, they could take that to Jaffna. They told me that I shouldn’t talk like this when I am living alone.

Both inadequate management of soil and lack of water contributed to the elimination of or decrease in harvests in Kilinochchi. Those farmers who do manage to obtain some harvests after the growing season are faced with many difficulties in trying to sell their products on the market.

32

6. LESSONS FOR POSTWAR REBUILDING OF RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS

Several lessons for rebuilding food systems after shocks emerge from the case of postwar Sri Lanka. Structural changes and new policy frameworks developed through citizen participation from the Northern and Eastern Provinces need to be implemented to rebuild food systems in war-torn environments. Consequently, following a systematic approach with a long-term view to building sustainable and resilient food systems is essential. The politicized nature of a postwar situation makes the task even more complicated than in other crises. Thus, it is essential for the government to ensure that none of the communities are marginalized during the country’s reform and rebuilding process. Taking the argument of Mitchell and others (2015) forward, food security is the first issue any postwar economy should focus on, given that food insecurity often leads to further conflict. However, food sovereignty is often neglected in the postwar context, and needs to be at the forefront of food system redevelopment to ensure sustainable livelihoods for impacted community members. As such, food sovereignty in tandem with community food security is the means to achieving a resilient food system within the context of postwar Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lanka case shows that lack of information on existing capacity gaps in a postwar situation remains a major constraint. The first step for any government after conflict is to conduct a comprehensive capacity assessment, estimating the total damage caused and identifying the capacity needs for the agricultural system. A key exercise in this capacity needs assessment is to identify the factors in the food system that could potentially trigger or escalate conflict. Identifying and addressing these issues will safeguard the country from vulnerability to conflicts in the future. Using such information in decision making can help in setting priorities for investments to rebuild the food system.

Second, the government should identify opportunities for developing capacity internally using local sources. The Sri Lankan experience shows that due to slow progress, accessing external technical assistance has been a challenge. Building local systems through existing human capacity, which could be strengthened from outside the conflict-ridden region, is the best option. This strategy would help the country build credibility for obtaining external technical assistance. For instance, a key constraint in the production system is the inability of farmers to use agricultural land to its full potential in Sri Lanka. Various resource constraints have restricted farmers’ use of both traditional and modern farming techniques, leading to low yields. In such cases, the government should support farmer self-determination and autonomy, as well as provide the necessary means for them to utilize existing resources (Pimbert 2009). For example, the government should promote the release of lands under HSZs, provide tangible land rights to all citizens in the Northern Province, and divert extension agents to conflict zones with highly productive land to capacitate vulnerable farmers. In addition, the government should collaborate and empower, first and foremost, grassroots organizations then civil societies, non-governmental organizations, private sectors, and diaspora to construct locally controlled circular agricultural systems, that place small-scale farmers as integral actors of the rebuilding process (International Institute for Environment and Development 2015). Subsequently, the government should democratize research (that is, participatory action research) and help build and strengthen networks of local innovators to develop productivity solutions in resource-constrained environments (Pimbert 2009).

Third, the government should develop plans to build emergency responses that complement long-term development investment. Although efforts toward long-term development of the region have long been underway, immediate protection for vulnerable groups through effective safety nets is essential. Ensuring that people have adequate resources to get back to their livelihoods is one step in this direction. At the time of resource redistribution, the government needs to be extra cautious in ensuring that there is no exclusion.

33

Fourth, the government should develop local capacity for the long run by harnessing the potential of the private sector to develop equitable market platforms for local producers. The government should ensure that all public-private partnerships contribute to the rebuilding of local economies and local ownership, as well as safeguard sustainable development and protection of the environment, local labor and citizen rights (Pimbert 2009).

Fourth, the government should put research, extension, and education systems in place to ensure that capacity development is undertaken at all levels. These institutions are fundamental for building the capacity of the food system. Partnering with donors and other international organizations can help countries quickly increase their research capacity. Further, it is important to strengthen the links between research and farmers.

Fifth, the government should create market linkages for the commodities produced, taking a value chain approach. It should develop regulatory frameworks for contract farming that connect providers to the local and regional markets in order to increase farm income and effectively integrate farms into agribusiness economic systems. The inability of farmers to market their produce in Sri Lanka is an example of the weak linkages in the system. Lack of information and the government’s inability to follow through on its promises have kept farmers trapped in poverty and food insecurity. Liberalization accentuated these problems, making it difficult for domestic farmers, with fewer resources and lower technical capacity, to compete internationally. Information and communication technology can provide a variety of low-cost, scalable solutions to overcome these problems (de Silva and Ratnadiwakara 2013).

Last, the government should open its door to the support of the diaspora through volunteer contributions to rebuilding communities via mediation and reconciliation. Such efforts go a long way toward restoring the social fabric of a country and rebuilding trust among its people. Such rebuilding forms the foundation of development progress in any society. Drawing lessons from other countries, such as Rwanda, that have been successful in reconciling differences among its people, should be carefully considered and applied to the Sri Lankan context. The government should ensure that all these interventions take place in the context of long-term peace and justice for the affected population.

34

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analysis presented above has highlighted several gaps in Sri Lanka’s agricultural system using the case of its Northern Province. We adapted the framework developed by Babu and Blom (2014) for building resilient food systems to assess the country’s food system based on the policy subsystem, the food production subsystem, and the institutional subsystem.

The policy subsystem shows several gaps. One is a lack of transparency and cooperation between various policy institutions, which makes the policy process extremely inefficient. Furthermore, a complicated legislative framework for land accentuates the vulnerability of poor farmers, particularly in the Northern Province. Additionally, the central government engaged in various types of land grabbing and extortion to build its military base during the war and infrastructure after the war, making it difficult for displaced people to return to their original livelihoods. Withholding arable land from agriculture has also made Sri Lanka more vulnerable to the risk of food insecurity.

The food production subsystem of Sri Lanka primarily consisted of paddy prior to the war, with prevalent home gardens in the north, in which more diverse crops were grown to meet the household’s nutrition needs. The devastation of the war caused these food systems to break down. Although there are very few data on production in northern Sri Lanka during and after the war, overall the situation of farmers is worse now more than ever. Being stripped of the traditional means of production, they have no access to information or finance for modern equipment and practices. Most northern districts continue to rely on fertilizers and pesticides, despite their associated risks and high costs.

Finally, the institutional subsystem also has major capacity gaps. Poor extension services plague Sri Lankan agriculture. There is very limited institutional capacity to provide information and knowledge to farmers. Furthermore, farmers’ inability to optimize the agricultural potential of their lands keeps their incomes quite low. Inadequate soil management and water scarcity add to their vulnerability, throwing them into a vicious cycle of poverty. Finally, poor access to markets makes agriculture unprofitable for rural households of the Northern Province in Sri Lanka.

In order to build resilient food systems in northern Sri Lanka, we suggest that relevant policies be implemented to build adaptive capacity, increase access to basic services, provide a stable economic environment, increase income-generating capacity, and increase human capital through education (Umetsu et al. 2014). Adaptive capacity to build resilient food systems can be developed by boosting human capital through education, reducing adult mortality to sustain a mature working population, and diversifying the economy to allow varied and multiple livelihood strategies (Umetsu et al. 2014). The government should also invest in increasing the physical infrastructure needed for food system resilience by rebuilding roads, ports, bridges, utility networks, and irrigation facilities that were destroyed in the war (Diao 2010) and providing social insurance, social safety nets, electricity, and public transportation for farmers to access markets better (Umetsu et al. 2014). In addition, public investments should be made in agricultural research and development to improve seed crops in order to combat the impacts of climate change and improve annual harvests (Umetsu et al. 2014; Diao 2010). Implementing these changes and collaborating with nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and local farmers will be essential to building resilient food systems in Sri Lanka.

35

REFERENCES

Aulakh, R. 2015. “Land Seized from Tamils Turned into Luxury Tourist Resorts in Sri Lanka, Report Finds.” Toronto Star, May 28.www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/05/28/land-seized-from-tamils-turned-into-luxury-tourist-resorts-in-sri-lanka-report-finds.html.

Agroproducts. 2008. Plough Suppliers, Disc Plough, Chisel Plough Exporters, Ridging Plough Manufacturers. Accessed November 30, 2014. www.agriculturalproductsindia.com/agricultural-machinery-equipments/ agricultural-machinery-equipments-plough.html.

Alexander, E. 2017. “Honorable Mention – Women of War: The Female Fighters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.” The Yale Review of International Studies RSS. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://yris.yira.org/essays/1347.

Altieri, M. A. 2002. “Agroecology: The Science of Natural Resource Management for Poor Farmers in Marginal Environments.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93 (2002): 1–24.

Alison, M. “Cogs in the Wheel? Women in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.” Civil Wars 6.4 (2003): 37–54.

Babu, S. C., and S. Blom. 2014. Capacity Development for Resilient Food Systems: Issues, Approaches, and Knowledge Gaps. Vol. 6. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Bastian, S. 2009. “Politics of Land and Land Reforms in Sri Lanka.” Accessed August 12, 2014. www.panossouthasia.org/PDF/Politics%20of%20Land%20Reform%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf.

Becker, M., and F. Asch. “Iron Toxicity in Rice—Conditions and Management Concepts.” Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 168.4 (2005): 558–573.

Bellows, A. C., and M. W. Hamm. 2003. “International Effects on and Inspiration for Community Food Security Policies and Practices in the USA.” Critical Public Health 13 (2): 107–123. doi:10.1080/0958159031000097652.

Breisinger, C., O. Ecker, J.-F. Maystadt, J.-F. Trinh Tan, P. Al-Riffai, K. Bouzar, A. Sma, and M. Abdelgadir. 2014. “Food Security Policies for Building Resilience to Conflict.” In Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security, edited by S. Fan, R. Pandya-Lorch, and S. Yosef, 37–44. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/ id/128443/filename/128654.pdf.

Buckmaster, A. D. 2012. Going the Distance: The Impact of Distance to Market on Smallholders Crop and Technology Choices. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, US. Accessed November 30, 2014. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05222012-142826/unrestricted/Buckmaster_AD_T_2012.pdf.

Choi, V. Y. 2012. “After Disasters: The Persistence of Insecurity in Sri Lanka.” Davis, CA, US: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Daily Financial Times. 2015. “The LLRC: What Lessons Have We Learnt about Reconciliation?” March 17. www.ft.lk/2015/03/17/the-llrc-what-lessons-have-we-learnt-about-reconciliation/.

Sri Lanka, DCS (Department of Census and Statistics). 2011. Sri Lanka Labor Force Survey: Annual Report. Accessed November 29, 2014. www.statistics.gov.lk/samplesurvey/LFS%20Annual%20Report_2011.pdf.

Sri Lanka, DoS (Department of Statistics). 2014. “Land Area by Province, District, and Divisional Secretariat Division,” Table 1.2. Accessed October 25, 2014. www.statistics.gov.lk/Pocket Book/chap01.pdf.

de Silva C. R., A. R. Perera, K. Hangawatte, C. Chanmugam, H. M. G. S. Palihakkara, M. R. M. P. Paranagama, M. T. M. Bafiq. 2011. “Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation.” President's Media Division. Government of Sri Lanka, Accessed March 28, 2017. www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201112/FINAL%20LLRC%20REPORT.pdf.

de Silva, H., and D. Ratnadiwakara. 2013. “ICT Policy for Agriculture Based on a Transaction Cost Approach: Some Lessons from Sri Lanka.” In Technology, Sustainability, and Rural Development in Africa, edited by B. Maumbe and J. J. Okello, 323–337. Hershey, PA, US: Information Science Reference.

36

Devi, N. Linthoingambi, and A. K. Das. 2012. “Diversity Utilization of Tree Species in Meitei Home gardens of Barak Valley, Assam.” Journal of Environmental Biology. (2012): 211–217.

Dharmasena, P. B. 1994. “Conservation Farming Practices for Small Reservoir Watersheds: A Case Study from Sri Lanka.” Agroforestry Systems. 28.3 (1994): 203–212.

———. 2010. “Agriculture, Environment and Food Security in the Context of Rice.” 2010. Accessed September 9, 2014. http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H042893.pdf.

———. 2012. “Traditional Rice Farming in Sri Lanka: Still Viable with Climate Change.” IPS CLIMATE net Blog: Climate Change Policy Network of Sri Lanka. 9 Mar. 2012. Accessed September 9, 2014. http://climatenet.blogspot.ca/2012/03/traditional-rice-farming-in-sri-lanka.html.

Diao, X. 2010. “Economic Importance of Agriculture for Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction: Findings from a Case Study of Ghana.” Paper presented at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Global Forum on Agriculture: Policies for Agricultural Development, Poverty Reduction and Food Security, Paris, November 29–30.

Domrös, M. 1974. The Agroclimate of Ceylon: A Contribution Towards the Ecology of Tropical Crops. Wiesbaden, Germany: Steiner.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1994. “Tree Resources in Sri Lanka.” Assessment of Tree Resources in the Home gardens of Sri Lanka. Accessed December 8, 2014. www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC629E/AC629E02.htm.

———. 1999. “Sri Lankan Women and Men as BioResource Managers”. Accessed November 25, 2014. www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac791e/AC791E07.htm.

———.2010a. “Household Food Security and Community Nutrition: Improving Nutrition through Home Gardening” Accessed October 25, 2014. www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/household_gardens_en.stm.

———. 2010b. “Sri Lanka.” FAO in Emergencies. Accessed November 30, 2014. www.fao.org/emergencies/countries.

———. 2014. “Environmental Links Between Forestry and Food Security.” Accessed November 16, 2014. www.fao.org/docrep/t0178e/T0178E03.htm?.

———. 2014. “Sri Lanka at a Glance.” Rome.

Feng, W., M. Xu, M. Fan, S. S. Malhi, J. J. Schoenau, J. Six, A. F. Plante. “Testing for Soil Carbon Saturation Behaviour in Agricultural Soils Receiving Long-term Manure Amendments.” Canadian Journal of Soil Science 94.3 (2013): 281–294.

Fonseka, B. 2016. “Land Occupation in the Northern Province: A Commentary on Ground Realities and Recommendations for Reform.” Accessed March 28, 2016. www.cpalanka.org/land-occupation-in-the-northern-province-a-commentary-on-ground-realities-and-recommendations-for-reform/.

Fonseka, B., and M. Raheem. 2010. “Land in the Eastern Province Politics, Policy and Conflict.” Accessed September 9, 2014. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/8DECA542CE3EB96B852577 220070E23E-Full_Report.pdf.

Fonseka, B., and M. Raheem. 2011 “Land Issues in the Northern Province: Post-War Politics, Policy and Practices.” Accessed April 8, 2017. www.cpalanka.org/land-issues-in-the-northern-province-post-war-politics-policy-and-practices/

Fonseka, B., and D. Jegatheeswaran. 2013. “Policy Briefs: Politics, Policies, and Practices with Land Acquisitions and Related Issues in the North and East of Sri Lanka.” Accessed December 1, 2014. www.cpalanka.org/policy-brief-politics-policies-and-practices-with-land-acquisitions-and-related-issues-in-the-north-and-east-of-sri-lanka/.

Fraser, E., F. Mousseau, and A. Mittal. 2017. “Justice Denied: A Reality Check on Resettlement, Demilitarization, and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka.” Oakland, CA, US: The Oakland Institute. www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/justice-denied.pdf.

37

Hamm, M. W., and A. C. Bellows. 2003. “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35 (1): 37–43. doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60325-4.

Galhena, D., R. Freed, and K. M. Maredia. 2013. “Home Gardens: A Promising Approach to Enhance Household Food Security and Wellbeing.” Agriculture & Food Security 2 (8).

Gates, S., H. Hegre, H. M. Nygård, and H. Strand. 2012. “Development Consequences of Armed Conflict.” World Development 40 (9): 1713–1722.

Gebresenbet, G., and P. G. Kaumbutho. "Comparative Analysis of the Field Performances of a Reversible Animal-drawn Prototype and Conventional Mouldboard Ploughs Pulled by a Single Donkey." Soil and Tillage Research 40.3-4 (1997): 169–183.

IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2001. “Global Trade Liberalization and the Developing Countries.” Washington, DC. www. imf. org/external/np/exr/ib/2001/110801. htm.

Gomez, S. 2016. “Women in Post-war Sri Lanka: Linking Policy to Reality.” In Gender, Violence and the State in Asia, edited by A. Barrow and J. L. Chia. New York: Routledge.

Green, M. J. B., and E. R. N. Gunawardena. 1997. “Designing an Optimum Protected Areas System for Sri Lanka's Natural Forests.” Accessed November 29, 2014. https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/10925/retrieve.

Gunasekara, V., M. Philips, K. Romeshun, and M. Munas. 2016 “Life and Debt”: Assessing the Impacts of Participatory Housing Reconstruction in Post-Conflict Sri Lanka.” Accessed March 28, 2017. www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.434/.

Herath, H. M. G. 1981. “The Green Revolution in Rice: The Role of the Risk Factor with Special Reference to Sri Lanka.” Asian Survey 21.6: 664–675.

Herath, H. M. S. P. 2014. “Has Trade Liberalization Improved Food Security? A Comparative Study on China and Sri Lanka.” European Journal of Business and Management 6 (18) 62–67.

Human Rights Watch. 2008. “Besieged, Displaced, and Detained: The Plight of Civilians in Sri Lanka’s Vanni Region” Washington, DC.

Immink, M. D. C., and J. A. Alarcon. 1993. “Household Income, Food Availability, and Commercial Crop Production by Smallholder Farmers in the Western Highlands of Guatemala.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 41 (2): 319–342.

Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. 2013. “Agricultural Economic Policy - Research Agenda.” Accessed November 30, 2014. www.ips.lk/agriecon/reagenda.html.

IRIN. 2015. “Help at Last for Sri Lanka War Widows.” Accessed April 12, 2017. www.irinnews.org/feature/2015/05/13/help-last-sri-lanka-war-widows.

IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). 2014. “Sri Lanka.” Battaramula, Sri Lanka. http://irri.org/our-work/locations/sri-lanka.

Jeyawardena, S. S. B. D. G. 2000. “Past, Present, and Future of the Golden Grain, Rice in Sri Lanka.” Accessed April 10, 2014. www.agrilearning.goviya.lk/Paddy/Paddy_Research/Paddy_pdf/SE7.pdf.

———. 2003. “Past Present and Future of the Golden Grain, Rice in Sri Lanka.” In: Rice Congress 2000, edited by D. S. De. Z. Abeysiriwardane, D. M. N. Dissanayake and L. Nugaliyadda, 15–23. Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: Department of Agriculture.

Karunagoda, K. 2004. “Changes in Labor Market and Domestic Agriculture.” Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics 6 (1): 82–97.

Karunaratne, H. D. “Globalisation, “Service Sector Expansion and Income Inequality in Sri Lanka.” Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences 26.1 (2003):47–70.

Klopp, J. 2002. “Settlement, Resettlement, and Displacement: Some Comparative Lessons from Sri Lanka.” New York: Columbia University. www.columbia.edu/~jk2002/publications/Klopp09.pdf.

38

Krishnamurthy, K., E. Turano, L. Nanayakkara, and R.H.W.A. Kumarasiri. 2014. “Sri Lanka - Consolidated Livelihood Exercise for Analysing Resilience.” Colombo, Sri Lanka: World Food Programme and Ministry of Economic Development. http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/ wfp269385.pdf?_ga=1.150794166.142478959.1491239318.

Korf, B. “War, Livelihoods and Vulnerability in Sri Lanka.” Development and Change 35.2 (2004): 275-295.

Kuganathan, P. 2014. “Social Stratification in Jaffna: A Survey of Recent Research on Caste.” Sociology Compass 8 (1): 78–88.

Kulatunga, S. T. K., and R. W. D. Lakshman. 2013. “Responding to Security Threats: Livelihoods under Protracted Conflict in Sri Lanka.” Disasters 37 (4): 604–626.

Kumar, B. M, and P. K Nair. Tropical Home Gardens a Time-tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.

Lall, A. 2015. Access to Water and Sanitation in Jaffna, Sri Lanka: Perceptions of Caste. Working Paper 28. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Centre for Poverty Analysis.

Landreth, N., and O. Saito. “An Ecosystem Services Approach to Sustainable Livelihoods in the Homegardens of Kandy, Sri Lanka.” Australian Geographer 45 (3): 355–373.

Lengnick, L. 2015. Resilient Agriculture: Cultivating Food Systems for a Changing Climate. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Lindberg, J., and D. Herath. "Land and Grievances in Post-conflict Sri Lanka: Exploring the Role of Corruption Complaints." Third World Quarterly 35.5 (2014): 888–904.

Linger, E. 2014. “Agro-Ecosystems and Socio-economic Role of Home Garden Agroforestry in Jabithenan District, North-Western Ethiopia: Implication for Climate Change Adaptation.” Springer 3–154.

Lewis, M., and P. Conaty. 2012. The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative Transitions to a Steady-State Economy. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Mitchell, D., D. Hudson, R. Post, P. Bell, and R. B. Williams. 2015. “Food Security and Conflict.” In Food Security in an Uncertain World: An International Perspective, edited by A. Schmitz, P. L. Kennedy, and T. G. Scmitz, 211–225. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

McGilvray, D. B., and R. M Fonseka. 2007. Muslim Perspectives on the Sri Lankan Conflict. Policy Study 41. Washington, DC: East-West Center.

McNeely, J. A. “Conserving Forest Biodiversity in Times of Violent Conflicts.” Oryx 37. 2 (2003): 1–11.

Menzies, C. R., and C. Butler. 2001.“Understanding Ecological Knowledge” In Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management, edited by C. R. Menzies, 1–17. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

MLLDS (Ministry of Land and Land Development Sri Lanka). 2013. “Circulars.” Accessed December 8, 2014. http://www.landmin.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=1:circulars&Itemid=68.

MRG (Minority Rights Group International). 2011.“No War, No Peace: The Denial of Minority Rights and Justice in Sri Lanka.” Accessed August 11, 2014. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/MRG_SriLanka_FINAL.pdf.

Mittal, A. 2015. The Long Shadow of War - The Struggle for Justice in Postwar Sri Lanka. Oakland, CA, US: The Oakland Institute. www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OI_The_Long_Shadow_of_ War_0.pdf.

Mulder, B. M. Coppolillo, and P. Coppolillo. 2005. Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics and Culture. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press.

Nair, P. K. R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.

39

Özerdem, A., and R. Roberts, eds. 2012. “The Impact of Conflict on Agriculture and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Challenges.” In Challenging Post-conflict Environments: Sustainable Agriculture, 19–34. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). 2013. “Over 1.8 Million Sri Lankans Are Affected by Drought Since 2013.” Humanitarian Bulletin. Accessed November 30, 2014. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Humanitarian Bulletin_SRI LANKA_Aug 2014.pdf.

Pathmanathan, H. “2014. Strengthening Resilience and Food Security through the Development of Agroforestry in Post-war Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka.” Thesis. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Peyre, A., A. Guidal, K. F. Wiersum, and F. Bongers. 2006. “Dynamics of Homegarden Structure and Function in Kerala, India.” Agroforestry Systems 66 (2) 101–115.

Pimbert, M. 2009. “Towards Food Sovereignty.” London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14585IIED.pdf.

Pimental, D. 1996. “Green Revolution Agriculture and Chemical Hazards.” The Science of the Toronto Environment 188 Suppl. 1 (1996) 86–98.

Poux. X. 2008. Low Input Farming Systems in Europe: What is At Stake? Luxembourg: European Communities. http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/LIFS_final.pdf.

Quist, C. 2015. “Widows’ Struggles in Post-war Sri Lanka.” Yemaya 50: 5–7. http://aquaticcommons.org/19635/1/Yemaya%2050.pdf.

Ratnasinghe, A. 2002. “Chena Cultivation: Most Primitive Type of Agriculture.” Daily News. Accessed September 23, 2014. http://archives.dailynews.lk/2002/08/27/fea06.html.

Roar.lk. 2016. “Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects.” June 6. http://roar.lk/reports/transitional-justice-sri-lanka-issues-challenges-prospects/.

Sahrawat, K. L.2005. “Iron Toxicity in Wetland Rice and the Role of Other Nutrients.” Journal of Plant Nutrition 27.8 (2005): 1471–1504.

Sandika, A. L., and N. R. P Withana. 2010. Economic Analysis of Chena Cultivation in Monaragala District, Sri Lanka. Nugegoda, Sri Lanka: Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.

Saparamadu, C., and A. Lall. 2014. Resettlement of Conflict-induced IDPS in Northern Sri Lanka: Political Economy of State Policy and Practice. SLRC Working Paper 10. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Sarvananthan, M. 2007. Economy of the Conflict Region in Sri Lanka from Embargo to Repression. Washington, DC: East-West Center.

Scarborough, G., and E. Mendez. 2015. “Building Resilient Food Systems through Agroecological Principles and Practices.” Portland, OR, US: Mercy Corps. Accessed April 13, 2017. www.mercycorps.org/research-resources/building-resilient-food-systems-through-agroecological-principles-and-practices.

Senathiraja, M. 2014. International Conference on Sate Grab of Tamil Land in the Island of Sri Lanka. London, January 31–February 1. http://sangam.org/conference-state-graba-tamil-land/.

Shiva, V. 1993. The Violence of the Green Revolution. London: Zed Books.

———. 1997. Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Cambridge, MA, US: South End Press.

Silva, K. T., P. P. Sivapragasam, and P. Thanges, eds. 2009. Casteless or Caste Blind? Dynamics of Concealed Caste Discrimination, Social Exclusion and Protest in Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Kumaran Book House.

Snapp, S., and B. Pound. 2008. Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development. Burlington, MA, US: Academic Press.

40

Speir, T. W., and D. J. Ross. “Hydrolytic Enzyme Activities to Assess Soil Degradation and Recovery.” Enzymes in the Environment: Activity, Ecology, and Applications, edited by R. G. Burns and R. P. Dick, M. Dekker, 407–431. New York.

Sri Lanka Army. 2017. “Army’s Manik Farm Begins Production of Hybrid Corn Seeds.”. Colombo, Sri Lanka. Accessed April 8, 2017. http://army.lk/news/army%E2%80%99s-manik-farm-begins-production-hybrid-corn-seeds.

World Food Programme and Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. 2015. “Sri Lanka - Food Security Atlas: Livelihoods, Food Security and Resilience.” http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp280069.pdf.

Sri Lankan Parliament. 1987. Thirteenth Amendment to Constitution. Colombo. Accessed April 2017. www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/shrilanka/document/actsandordinance/13th_amendment.pdf.

Srinivasan, M. 2014. “A Food Crisis Waiting to Happen.” The Hindu. March 3.

Sumanthiran. M. A. 2011. “Situation in North-Eastern Sri Lanka: A Series of Serious Concerns.” Ilankai Tamil Sangam, October 21. Accessed November 8, 2016. www.sangam.org/2011/10/Serious_Concerns.php.

The Maatram Foundation. 2015. Understanding Post-War Land Issues in Northern Sri Lanka. Thiruvanmiyur, India.

The Social Architects. 2012. Salt on Old Wounds: The Systematic Sinhalization of Sri Lanka’s North, East, and Hill Country. https://sivasinnapodi.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/86040164-salt-on-old-wounds-the-systematic-sinhalization-of-sri-lanka_s-north-east-and-hill-country.pdf.

Thiranagama, S. 2014. “Sri Lanka’s Lingering State of War.” Current History 113 (762): 163–164.

Thrupp, L. A. “Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and food Security: The Valuable Role of Agrobiodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture.” International Affairs 76.2 (2000): 283–297.

Umetsu, C., T. Lekprichakul, T. Sakurai, T. Yamauchi, Y. Ishimoto, and H. Miyazaki. 2014. “Dynamics of Social–Ecological Systems: The Case of Farmers’ Food Security in the Semi-arid Tropics.” In Social-Ecological Systems in Transition, edited by S. Sakai and C. Umetsu, 157–178. Tokyo: Springer Japan.

Vanasselt, W. 2003. “Armed Conflict, Refugees, and the Environment.” Earth Trends July: 25–27.

Vermeulen, S. J., P. K. Aggarwala, A. Ainslied, C. Angelonee, B. M. Campbella, A. J. Challinora, J. W. Hansena, et al. 2012. “Options for Support to Agriculture and Food Security under Climate Change.” Environmental Science and Policy 15 (1): 136–144.

Vhurumuka et al. 2012. Food Security in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka: A Comprehensive Food Security Assessment Report Sri Lanka. Rome: World Food Programme.

Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2012. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Walton, O. 2013. “Reconciliation in Post-war Sri Lanka.” Insight on Conflict. January 10. Accessed April 13, 2017. www.insightonconflict.org/blog/2013/01/reconciliation-post-war-sri-lanka.

Wickramasinghe, A. 1995. Different Places, Different Voices: Gender and Development in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: Routledge.

Wickramasinghe, W. M. A. D. B. and J. D. H. Wijewardena. 2003. Soil Fertility Management and Integrated Plant Nutrition Systems in Rice Cultivation. Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: Rice Congress 2000, Department of Agriculture.

WFP (World food Programme). 2012. “Food Security in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka.” Rome.

———. 2014. “World Food Programme Fighting Hunger Worldwide.” Sri Lanka. 2014. Accessed November 30, 2014. www.wfp.org/countries/sri-lanka/overview.

Zainudeen, M. H. 2016. Land Administration in Sri Lanka Issues and Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank.

RECENT IFPRI DISCUSSION PAPERS

For earlier discussion papers, please go to www.ifpri.org/publications/discussion_papers. All discussion papers can be downloaded free of charge.

1643. Empowerment, adaptation, and agricultural production: Evidence from Niger. Fleur Wouterse, 2017.

1642. Insurance structure, risk sharing, and investment decisions: An empirical investigation of the implications of individual and group weather index insurance. Laura Munro, 2017.

1641. Economic accounts for agriculture and farm income in Senegal. Ismaël Fofana, Mahamadou Tankari, and Fousseini Traore, 2017.

1640. Food inflation and food price volatility in India: Trends and determinants. C. S. C. Sekhar, Devesh Roy, and Yogesh Bhatt, 2017.

1639. Revitalized agriculture for balanced growth and resilient livelihoods: Toward a rural development strategy for Mon State. Mateusz Filipski, Ulrike Nischan, Joanna Van Asselt, Ben Belton, Adam Kennedy, Aung Hein, Duncan Boughton, and Paul Dorosh, 2017.

1638. Rural livelihoods in Mon State: Evidence from a representative household survey. Mateusz Filipski, Joanna Van Asselt, Ulrike Nischan, Ben Belton, Kyan Htoo, Myat Thida Win, Aung Hein, L. Seng Kham, Zaw Min Naing, Ellen Payongayong, and Duncan Boughton, 2017.

1637. The great Chinese inequality turnaround. Ravi Kanbur, Yue Wang, and Xiaobo Zhang, 2017.

1636. Can agricultural aspirations influence preferences for new technologies?: Cropping systems and preferences for high-efficiency irrigation in Punjab, Pakistan. Andrew R. Bell, Patrick S. Ward, Muhammad Ashfaq, and Stephen Davies, 2017.

1635. Impact of India’s national food security act on domestic and international rice markets. Deepayan Debnath, Suresh Chandra Babu, Parijat Ghosh, and Michael Helmar, 2017.

1634. Agricultural diversification in Nepal: Status, determinants, and its impact on rural poverty. Ganesh Thapa, Anjani Kumar, and P. K. Joshi, 2017.

1633. The “discouraged worker effect” in public works programs: Evidence from the MGNREGA in India. Sudha Narayanan, Upasak Das, Yanyan Liu, and Christopher B. Barrett, 2017.

1632. Measuring postharvest losses at the farm level in Malawi. Kate Ambler, Alan de Brauw, and Susan Godlonton, 2017.

1631. Nutrition transition and the structure of global food demand. Christophe Gouel and Houssein Guimbard, 2017.

1630. Insuring against droughts: Evidence on agricultural intensification and index insurance demand from a randomized evaluation in rural Bangladesh. Ruth Vargas Hill, Neha Kumar, Nicholas Magnan, Simrin Makhija, Francesca de Nicola, David J. Spielman, and Patrick S. Ward, 2017.

1629. Nutrition incentives in dairy contract farming in northern Senegal. Tanguy Bernard, Melissa Hidrobo, Agnes Le Port, and Rahul Rawat, 2017.

1628. Chinese investment in Ghana’s manufacturing sector. Xiaoyang Tang, 2017.

1627. Participation, learning, and equity in education: Can we have it all? Clara Delavallade, Alan Griffith, Gaurav Shukla, and Rebecca Thornton, 2017.

1626. Limitations of contract farming as a pro-poor strategy: The Case of maize outgrower schemes in upper west Ghana. Catherine Ragasa, Isabel Lambrecht, and Doreen S. Kufoalor, 2017.

1625. Cooperation in polygynous households. Abigail Barr, Marleen Dekker, Wendy Janssens, Bereket Kebede, and Berber Kramer, 2017.

1624. Farmers’ quality assessment of their crops and its impact on commercialization behavior: A field experiment in Ethiopia. Gashaw Tadesse Abate and Tanguy Bernard, 2017.

1623. Changing gender roles in agriculture?: Evidence from 20 years of data in Ghana. Isabel Lambrecht, Monica Schuster, Sarah Asare, and Laura Pelleriaux, 2017.

1622. Improving the targeting of fertilizer subsidy programs in Africa south of the Sahara: Perspectives from the Ghanaian experience. Nazaire Houssou, Collins Asante-Addo, and Kwaw S. Andam, 2017.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

www.ifpri.org

IFPRI HEADQUARTERS 1201 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 200052 USA Tel.: +1-202-862-5600 Fax: +1-202-862-5606 Email: ifpri@cgiar.org