Statement by leading economists and academics on Sri Lanka’s Climate Crisis and IMF Restructuring Deal

Sri Lanka’s 17th IMF sovereign debt restructuring agreement is executed under the 48-month IMF Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and provides limited debt service relief.  It therefore failed to provide a sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s debt crisis and left Sri Lanka extremely vulnerable to external shocks – particularly climate-induced disasters.

Those shocks have now hit with the catastrophic aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah – marked by widespread flooding, deadly landslides, displacement of more than 1.4 million people, and nearly 800 individuals either dead or missing.  The concern over the country’s future deepens. Under the current IMF-supported arrangement, creditors agreed to reduce the size of Sri Lanks debt payments, measured in net present value terms, by 17%.

This left Sri Lanka with government external debt payments of around 25% of revenue, one of the highest rates in the world. According to IMF staff, under the IMF’s own models, Sri Lanka has a 50% chance of defaulting and/or needing another debt restructuring, even after debt relief. The IMF publicly said that “debt risks will remain high for many years”. Sri Lanka is now confronting a severe economic shock triggered by the recent cyclone, extensive flooding and landslides, which has inflicted extensive damage to infrastructure, livelihoods, and key sectors of the economy.

This environmental emergency is poised to absorb – and potentially exceed – the extremely limited fiscal space created by the current debt restructuring package. Additional external debt is already being taken on from the IMF, and more lending to deal with the impacts of the disaster is likely.

Given Sri Lanka’s vulnerabiity to climate shocks, the scale of destruction underscores how insufficient the present debt deal is in safeguarding economic stability. The country’s already fragile socio-economic landscape heightens the risks: diminished revenues, rising reconstruction costs, and increased import needs could quickly undermine projected gains from the restructuring. In this context, the nation remains acutely exposed to further external shocks, whether climatic or economic, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive, resilience-oriented debt solution. The IMF itself has acknowledged that Sri Lanka’s path to “debt sustainability remains knife-edged,” with the country only narrowly meeting targets while social-spending benchmarks were missed.

In light of the current climate catastrophe that has hit Sri Lanka, we wish to highlight the following points:

  • The existing restructuring – modest, conditional and tied to uncertain macroeconomic outcomes – is inadequate to protect the vulnerable majority from recurrent climate and external shocks.
  • By prioritising debt service continuity over deep debt relief, the IMF programme perpetuates structural exposure of Sri Lanka’s economy and population to future disasters.
  • Continuing to impose debt repayment obligations under these conditions fails to consider Sri Lanka’s capacity to service debt, which should instead be based on its foreign exchange (forex) earnings.
  •  Current onerous debt servicing undermines efforts to rebuild lives, restore agriculture, infrastructure, and provide social protection. Therefore, we call for immediate suspension of Sri Lanka’s external sovereign debt payments, and a new restructuring that restores debt sustainability under the new circumstances.

We propose the adoption of a genuinely sustainable framework that:

  • Recognises climate-driven disasters as systemic, not exceptional, shocks.
  • Provides significant debt cancellation – with no punitive conditions – to free up fiscal space for disaster recovery, social protection, reconstruction and development.
  • Prioritises human welfare, environmental protection, and long-term viability over f inancial obligations to external creditors. Only a fundamental rethinking of the global debt regime – one based on justice and sustainability – will offer Sri Lanka a realistic chance to recover from the climate impacts and build an equitable future for all.

Coordinated by:  Professor Jayati Ghosh; Debt Justice, UK;  Institute of Political Economy, Sri Lanka.

SIGNATORIES 1. Professor Jayati Ghosh, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA 2. Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University, USA 3. Professor Thomas Piketty, Science Po/Paris School of Economics, France 4. Professor Yanis Varoufakis, University of Athens, Greece 5. Professor Martin Guzman, Columbia University, USA 6. Professor C P Chandrasekhar, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA 7. Professor Stephanie Kelton, Stony Brook University, USA 8. Professor Jason Hickel, ICTA-University of Barcelona, Spain/LSE, United Kingdom 9. Professor Guy Standing, SOAS, University of London, U.K. 10. Professor Fadhel Kaboub, Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, USA 11. Professor Gary Dymski, Leeds University, United Kingdom 12. Professor Sudip Chaudhuri, India Institute of Management – Calcutta, India 13. Professor Kevin Gallagher, Boston University, USA 14. Professor Radhika Balakrishnan, Rutgers University, USA 15. Professor Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts, USA 16. Professor Utsa Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. 17. Professor Mariana Reis Maria, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil 18. Professor Irene van Staveren, Erasmus University – Rotterdam, The Netherlands 19. Professor Juan Carolos Moreno-Brid, UNAM-Mexico 20. Professor Surajit Mazumdar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India 21. Professor Howard Nicholas, International School of Business – Ho Chi Min, Vietnam 22. Professor A Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Trent University, Canada 23. Professor Gunseli Berik, University of Utah, USA 24. Professor Sergio Cesaratto, University of Sienna, Italy 25. Professor Yavuz Yazar, University of Denver, USA. 26. Professor Suzanne Bergeron, University of Michigan – Dearborn, USA 27. Professor S Subramanium, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai, India 28. Professor David Rucio, Notre Dame University, USA 29. Professor M V Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA 30. Professor Julie Nelson, University of Massachusetts – Boston, USA 31. Professor Farida Khan, University of Colorado, USA 32. Professor Smriti Rao, Assumption University, USA 33. Professor Gustavo Indart, University of Toronto, Canada 34. Professor R Ramakumar, Tata Institute of Social Studies – Mumbai, India 35. Professor Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts- Boston, USA 36. Professor Yana Rodgers, Rutgers University, USA 37. Dr Isabella Weber, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA 38. Dr Lucas Chancel, Science Po/Paris School of Economics, France 39. Dr Dean Baker, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA 40. Dr Ndongo Samba Sylla, IDEAS, Senegal 41. Dr Pedro Rossi, Global Fund for a New Economy, Brazil 42. Dr H Himanshu, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India 43. Dr Ingrid Kvangraven, Kings College – London, U.K. 44. Dr Surbhi Kesar, SOAS – University of London, U.K 45. Dr N
45. Dr Narayani Sritharan, AID Data, USA 46. Dr Tracey Freiberg, John Jay College, USA 47. Dr Ajit Zacharias, Levy Institute – Bard College, USA 48. Dr Smita Ramnarain, University of Rhode Island, USA 49. Dr Sheba Tejani, Kings College – London, U.K. 50. Professor Vijay Prashad, TRICONTINENTAL Institute, Argentina 51. Professor Barbara Harriss-White, Oxford University, U.K. 52. Professor Shirin Rai, SOAS – University of London, U.K 53. Professor Kanchana N. Ruwanpura, University of Gothenburg, Sweden 54. Professor Alessandra Mezzadri, SOAS – University of London, U.K 55. Professor Raj Patel, University of Texas – Austin, USA 56. Professor Kanishka Goonewardena, University of Toronto, Canada 57. Professor Vasuki Nesiah, New York University, USA 58. Professor Aram Ziai, Kassel University, Germany 59. Professor Matthias Goldman, EBS University, Germany 60. Professor Nata Duvvury, National University of Ireland – Galway, Ireland 61. Professor Maggie Leung, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 62. Professor Padraig Carmody, Trinity College – Dublin, Ireland 63. Professor Bart Klem, University of Ghent, Belgium 64. Professor Roar Høstaker, Inland Norway University, Norway. 65. Professor Benjamin Selwyn, University of Sussex, U.K. 66. Professor John Morrissey, National University of Ireland – Galway, Ireland 67. Professor Kanishka Jayasuriya, Murdoch University, Australia 68. Professor Wilfried Swenden, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom 69. Professor Roger Jeffery, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom 70. Professor Naomi Hossain, SOAS – University of London, U.K 71. Professor Page Fontana, Columbia University, USA 72. Professor Dina Siddiqi, New York University, USA 73. Professor Christoper Cramer, SOAS – University of London. U.K. 74. Professor Ruvani Ranasinha, Kings College – London, U.K. 75. Professor Maria Heim, Amherst College, USA 76. Professor John Hariss, Simon Fraser University, Canada 77. Professor Nirmala Salgado, Augustana College, USA 78. Professor Vinay Gidwani, University of Minnesota, USA 79. Professor Dia da Costa, University of Alberta, Canada 80. Professor Atilio Boron, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina 81. Professor Anne Blackburn, Cornell University, USA 82. Professor Deepta Chopra, University of Sussex, U.K 83. Professor Muthucumaraswamy Sornaraha, National University of S 84. Professor Rahul Mukherji, Heidelberg University, Germany 85. Dr Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, CONICET and National University of Rio Negro (CIEDIS) – Argentina. 86. Dr Mieke Lopes Cardozo, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 87. Dr Thiruni Kelegama, University of Oxford, U.K. 88. Dr Giselle Thompson, University of Alberta, Canada 89. Dr Nimanthi Rajasingham-Perera, Colgate University, U.S.A 90. Dr Andrew Newsham, SOAS – University of London, U.K. 91. Dr Bhumika Muchchala, New School University, USA 92. Dr Alexandre da Costa, Alberta University, Canada/Brazil 93. Dr Sharika Thiranagama, Stanford University, USA 94. Dr Amali Wedagedara, Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Sri Lanka 95. Dr Eva Ambos, Tubingen University, Germany 96. Dr Paul Gilbert, University of Sussex, United Kingdom 97. Dr Priyadarshini Premarathne, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka 98. Dr Farah Mihlar, Oxford Brookes University, U.K 99. Dr MeeNilancko Theiventharan, University of Oslo, Norway 100.Dr Shyamain Wickramasingha, University of Sussex, U.K 101.Dr Joeri Scholtens, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 102.Dr Susantha Rasnayake, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka  103.Dr Alicia Yamin, Harvard University, U.S.A. 104.Dr Lara Merling, UCL – Institute for Innovation Public Purpose, U.K. 105.Dr Rohith Jyothish, O. P. Jindal Global University – Sonipat, India 106.Dr Jon Philips, SOAS – University of London, U 107.Anne Pettifor, Jubilee Campaign, U.K 108.Tim Jones, Debt Justice – U.K., U.K. 109.Kate Raworth, Environmental Change Institute, Canada 110.Veronica Gróndona, ICRICT, Argentina 111.Maia Colodenco, Suramericana Vision, Argentina 112.Dr. Farwa Sial, IDEAS – Asia Region 113.Emma Bury, AID Data, USA. 114.Robin Jespert, Goethe University, Germany 115.Kevin Cashman, John Jay College – CUNY, USA 116.Gabriele Koehler, UNRISD, Switzerland 117.Vincent Chee, Raffles College of Higher Education, Singapore 118.Matheus Machado, IBMEC – Brazil 119.Chiara Subrizi, University Urbino Carlo Bo, Italy 120.Kowsalya Duraiswamy, Sri Lanka 121.Emma Burgisser, Christian AID, United Kingdom

 

accountability anti-Muslim violence army australia BBS Buddhism Canada china cinema Colombo Commonwealth Summit democracy Development diaspora economy Gotabaya Rajapaksa human rights India Jaffna justice LTTE Mahinda Rajapaksa media minorities Muslim Northern province Parliamentary Elections 2015 Peace and Conflict Politics and Governance Presidential Election 2015 Presidential election 2019 reconciliation religion Tamil tamil diaspora Tamils Tamil vote TNA tsunami UK UN USA violence war crimes women

accountability anti-Muslim violence army australia BBS Buddhism Canada china cinema Colombo Commonwealth Summit democracy Development diaspora economy Gotabaya Rajapaksa human rights India Jaffna justice LTTE Mahinda Rajapaksa media minorities Muslim Northern province Parliamentary Elections 2015 Peace and Conflict Politics and Governance Presidential Election 2015 Presidential election 2019 reconciliation religion Tamil tamil diaspora Tamils Tamil vote TNA tsunami UK UN USA violence war crimes women

accountability anti-Muslim violence army australia BBS Buddhism Canada china cinema Colombo Commonwealth Summit democracy Development diaspora economy Gotabaya Rajapaksa human rights India Jaffna justice LTTE Mahinda Rajapaksa media minorities Muslim Northern province Parliamentary Elections 2015 Peace and Conflict Politics and Governance Presidential Election 2015 Presidential election 2019 reconciliation religion Tamil tamil diaspora Tamils Tamil vote TNA tsunami UK UN USA violence war crimes women

accountability anti-Muslim violence army australia BBS Buddhism Canada china cinema Colombo Commonwealth Summit democracy Development diaspora economy Gotabaya Rajapaksa human rights India Jaffna justice LTTE Mahinda Rajapaksa media minorities Muslim Northern province Parliamentary Elections 2015 Peace and Conflict Politics and Governance Presidential Election 2015 Presidential election 2019 reconciliation religion Tamil tamil diaspora Tamils Tamil vote TNA tsunami UK UN USA violence war crimes women

“Your island seems to be washing away into the sea”

Plantation growth, environmental dislocation and decline of peasant agriculture in colonial Ceylon

by Eric P. Meyer

 

At a time of distress when cyclone has resulted in dramatic floods and landslides and when controversies about the causes and responsibilities for the disaster are swelling, it is worth recalling that environmental dislocation in Sri Lanka must be traced back to the development of plantations in the Kandyan regions in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and that the adverse impact of plantation development on peasant agriculture and the lack of conservancy policies had been denounced by reports after reports, but with no avail.[1]

 

In 1931, a report on soil erosion in Ceylon quoted the words of the director of Kew Gardens, the British botanist A.W. Hill: “Your island seems to be washing away into the sea”.[2]

 

Such a statement was not new. The issue had been discussed by scientists since 1873 when, instructed by Thwaites, director of the Peradeniya gardens, the then director of Kew gardens, Hooker, wrote to the Colonial office “The mischief done in other colonies is especially to be guarded against in this case. The planting of tea and coffee has suddenly become an object of active and to some extent of almost a speculative enterprise (…) There is reason to fear that districts may have been hastily cleared of forest”. The Governor Gregory tried to put the blame on slash-and-burn (chena) cultivation, described as “the easiest and laziest cultivation”, without totally exonerating the planters. This led to the stoppage of land alienation by the Crown above 5,000 ft, but Thwaites in his Administration report of 1878 pointed out that silting and drying up of sources, attributable to the carelessness of the planters, continued.  Shortly later, the coffee enterprise collapsed due to leaf rust (hemileia vastatrix), to be replaced by tea plantations. In 1882, the new governor, Gordon, asked a member of the Indian Forest Service, D’A Vincent, to report on the forest administration of Ceylon[3]. This detailed report blamed the colonial administration for a total lack of interest for forest conservation and the inability to apply its own regulations, since the beginning of the coffee cultivation. A few years later, the sudden development of tea estates in the Kelani Valley resulted in the general silting of the Kelani river hitherto used for transport, which led to a project of railway, and this situation was the subject of three successive reports[4], which recommended to establish compulsory rules to control erosion by plantations, noted that navigation was for the first time interrupted on the Kelani river during the dry season and that it was the result of the opening of the tea plantations, while Forsythe, the representative of the planters, blamed chena cultivation (“a wasteful and pernicious system”) for most of the erosion and minimized the extent of paddy fields affected by silting. In 1909 experiments by Peradeniya to better control erosion were abandoned; and an Indian specialist of irrigation pointed out the impact of the cultivation practices of the planters “ill adapted to tropical conditions”. Another report by P.M. Lushington, of the Indian Forest Service[5] blamed the Ceylon system which gave little power to the Forest department, and after explaining that forests are necessary to regularize the flow from rainfall, concluded “no greater condemnation of the forest policy of Ceylon can be made than that which nature herself affords in the state of her principal rivers  (…) The protection of the rivers in Ceylon is no longer in the hands of the forest department but for the greater part in the hand of the planter (…) the whole point of protecting forests has been missed”.  None of the reports was followed by an energetic policy of forest and soil conservation, owing to the paramount power of the planting industry.

 

The soil erosion report of 1931 was extremely critical of the planters’ lack of awareness of the situation: “it is doubtful whether [the planters] see the necessity for looking beyond the present and working for the future. There is a distinct tendency in certain quarters to be satisfied with what has been done (…) and to regard with prejudice and impatience the view that further measures are required. A planter stated that Agents would not countenance the spending of large sums on measures of soil conservation. The tenure of the superintendent is short contrary to the proprietary planters of old (…) It was suggested to the committee that the policy of owners, agents and visiting agents was short-sighted and that it was necessary to persuade these authorities of the value of measures of soil conservation”. The report criticized the unchecked practice of clean weeding on steep tea plantations resulting in the uprooting of tea plants (what the workers called “spider”), silting of culverts and eventual abandonment of acres become unproductive. In rubber plantations, erosion was less apparent but very real and as the paddy fields and gardens were in close contact with them, the adverse impact was seriously felt. The extension of small rubber holdings by the conversion of paddy land was made without any regard to soil conservation, contrary to the practice of terraced paddy cultivation, which was ideal to preserve the ecology. In coconut areas, there was little erosion as the land was generally flat and covered with grass but the risk of flooding was serious. According to the commission, in every planting district of the island, except flat coconut areas, there were constant complaints of troubles to paddy cultivation due to erosion in uphill estates and subsequent silting of fields and irrigation channels. In particular areas, such as the Kotmale valley above Gampola, Spring valley in Uva, Aranayake valley in Kägalla, landslides regularly occurred as a result of indiscriminate clearings on steep slopes. Whole valleys were affected for a couple of cultivation seasons, and fields on the margins of the estates were abandoned for good. Irrigation channels (elas) were choked, their banks breached by gravel and stones coming straight from estate drains, and water flow to the fields was stopped. In the worst cases, as in the Kotmale valley, landslides engulfed whole tracts of paddy fields . The report minimized the responsibility of slash-and-burn (chena) cultivation, which was the usual culprit in the colonial discourse: “The chena system is undoubtedly responsible for a large amount of preventable erosion, but it is possible that the damage is not so great as often thought. The chena cultivator does not introduce drainage systems into his land, but on the other hand, he does not keep the surface of the soil so scrupulously clean as the estate planter and the very presence of weeds assists in preventing soil wash”. Peasant care in land management, and the preoccupation with preserving or increasing the diversity of resources available in the highlands, are indeed well documented[6].

 

The report was received with little interest in the Colonial Office in London, where the great issue at the time was the political reform proposed by the Donoughmore commission. On the other side, the destructive impact of the plantation system on peasant agriculture became a leitmotiv of the political discourse in Ceylon after 1930, during and after the great depression. For example, in 1934, S.A. Wickramasinghe, the first leftist elected at the State Council, declared in a speech: “There is wanton soil erosion taking place. I have myself seen a report which stated that 20,000 villagers [sic] had to leave a district because of this. That document is available in the Kandy kacceri. Some harrowing tales of decimation are reported by the Government Agent in his Administration report as a consequence of the opening up of estates”[7]. Shortly after independence, the Kandyan Peasantry Commission concluded that the plantation system was responsible for the ‘disintegration of the village’. This thesis was later challenged by economists who held that the plantation sector and the village sector functioned in watertight compartments with little interference, and by academic historians such as Michael Roberts who argued that the impact remained limited[8]. The accumulation of local evidence found in official reports and unprinted diaries of colonial officers suggest that the environmental impact was deep, concentrated and direct in specific areas where tea, rubber and coconut estates were close to the villages, and that it was indirectly felt in other areas as well. We review here a large collection of such cases taken from different areas before focusing on the Kägalla district.

 

*

 

Deforestation leading to soil erosion and disruption of water systems was common during the coffee era (1830s to 1880s) in the upper valleys of the rivers of the Central and Uva provinces, especially in Kotmale, Uda Hewaheta and Udukinda. In the 1860s, the Government made timid attempts to arrest the process, by reserving wooden belts along the streams when selling lands to the planters, or even by repurchasing land for the purpose: “In the older grants made by Government, no reservation was made of land on either side of the water courses. Coffee growers who constantly purchased the higher lands took advantage of this to extend their plantations up to the edge of the water. The consequence has been in many cases the free flow of the water has been obstructed to the great prejudice of the paddy cultivators whose fields were irrigated by that water”. But the damage had already been done, and it continued because reservations were rarely delimited and planters quite often encroached on them without reaction from the authorities.[9] The Administration report of Nuwara Eliya for 1884 analyzed the situation in Pallegampaha korale of Uda Hewaheta: “There can be no doubt that the clearing of almost all the slopes at the head of this valley as coffee estates (Graymount being one of them) has seriously affected the water supply of the fields below (at Liyanwela), and disregard or at least ignorance of this probable result was shown when so much forest was sold to be opened as estates”. In Gangapalata korale (Udawatte) “the village lies on the northern slope of the Diyatalawa and I think that the opening of a great deal of the land high up on that hill as coffee estates must have permanently impaired the water supply of the streams. I do not see any other reason for the insufficiency of water to irrigate the fields formerly cultivated regularly”. The same situation prevailed in Walapane. In Kohoka korale paddy fields were abandoned following landslides “due undoubtedly to the total destruction of forests”. When coffee estates closed down in the 1880s, it was found possible to reopen abandoned irrigation works, such as the Werapitiya Maha ela in Pata Dumbara: “about 4 miles of a channel which had been blocked for years and which used to irrigate a very large area of land. The destruction of the latter work had been due to the silt from two coffee estates through which the ela passed and which had been sold by the Crown without a reservation along the ela, and it was only when the estates were finally abandoned that it was found possible to reopen the channel”[10]. In addition, at least during the coffee era, water powered factories often tapped the streams to the detriment of paddy fields owners, and the streams passing through estates were regularly polluted by coffee berry processing operations

 

 Whether deforestation modified the regime and amount of rainfall or not was and still is debated[11]. There were signs of a reduction of rainfall on the upper slopes of the up-country and of a less regular distribution of rainfall along the year in the plantation areas, due to reduced moisture of the atmosphere, but no incontestable proof can be adduced. P.M. Lushington, in his report on Ceylon forests published in 1921, held the following view: “Forests do not increase rainfall to any appreciable extent, but they serve to distribute the water supply and to prevent erosion. By cooling the atmosphere the forests assist in causing additional local rainfall, but the value in breaking the force of the wind, in preventing floods and landslides, and the silting of rivers, thus keeping them navigable, is far greater.” Revenue officers in the field were more assertive, for example in a report on the Nuwara Eliya district[12]: “There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the extensive forest clearings made in Walapane and Hewaheta as elsewhere within the last 40 years or so, have very materially and prejudicially affected the productiveness of the paddy lands in these divisions, both by reason of the decrease in the regular flow of water in the streams on which the fields used to depend, and also because of the diminution in the supply of fertilizing substances carried down in the low-lying lands from the adjacent forests during the rain.” Even if one discounts the hypothesis of rainfall reduction, the springs included in the estates became less regular with the disappearance of trees and the thinning of the soil.    

 

When tea replaced coffee in the 1880s, massive deforestation affected the ‘mid country’ where new estates were established on former chena lands. As a result, not only fields, but also rivers of the wet zone became silted, and their flow irregular. The bed of the Maha Oya was raised by 11 ft., that of the Sitawaka Ganga, a tributary of the Kelani Ganga, by 20 ft.; the Kalu and the Kelani Ganga became unnavigable from the 1880s, and overflowed their banks during heavy rains, while sand bars at the mouth increased the risk of floods. The waters of the Kelani Ganga, which were described as “beautifully transparent as it is fed chiefly by mountain streams” at the beginning of the 19th century, became exceedingly muddy, and one of its tributaries which formed the “finest bathing place in the island” in the early 1880s in the experience of Governor Gordon, washed along heavy silt as soon as plantations were opened upstream.[13]

 

Once again, a legislation was enacted to protect irrigation works but did little to prevent future silting as it safeguarded the interests of the planters: the paddy cultivation ordinance 23 of 1889, was “so framed as to afford adequate protection against injury to irrigation channels without undue hardship to the owners of adjoining properties” [14].  According to the Agent in Matale in 1896, “careless wording of the ordinance has made the law inoperative. I have had the case where 18 drains have been turned into an ela, naturally to the destruction of the latter. The people would of course have their civil remedy. But the Kandyan villager is always reluctant about going to law with his European neighbor”. Again in 1905: “injury to irrigation channels and paddy fields from wash and silt from the numerous new clearings (…) Engineering difficulties would be very costly to overcome. The law as it stands does not help in these cases”. In 1890, in Rayigam and Pasdun korales of Kalutara “there were many well founded complaints of damage occasioned by silt washed down into paddy fields from tea clearings, complaints were also made of the difficulties of procuring jungle sticks for fencing”. In 1898, in Uva: “It is always imprudent to sell for tea planting land through which an ela runs. This however has happened frequently but more often at the instance of Government than of the villager. Great damage results to elas and fields through the clearing of land above them and an expenditure of some 7,000 Rs will be entailed in repairing the Aluth Ela near Badulla town, solely in consequence of the damage resulting of the opening of the Ilverton estate just above”.[15] In many cases, the estates grudgingly paid compensation to field owners instead of undertaking permanent works such as the building of silt traps and of crossings over the irrigation channels. Some paddy cultivators benefitted from the wash of plantation manure. But on the whole, these nuisances led to strained relations between village and estate: this was especially the case in the densely populated mid-country areas[16].

 

In 1908, still another ‘rice cultivation committee’ was set up and reported district by district on the effect of silting and drying up of springs, but also more generally on the state of paddy cultivation. It tended to minimize the adverse ecological impact of plantation development on rice cultivation, insisting rather on the economic impact, due to the greater profitability of crops other than paddy (including hill paddy) and on the attraction exerted by higher wages on rubber or tea which deprived paddy cultivation of necessary labour. The most detailed testimony was that of Hellings, Government Agent at Ratnapura, but he considered that silting could be a blessing in disguise because silt is rich in manure[17].   

 

The rubber boom in the Sabaragamuwa and Kalutara districts and the coconut boom in the North Western province resulted in a form of re-afforestation of the slopes of the mid-country which were used by villagers for slash and burn cultivation, but nevertheless disrupted the water systems. In addition to the environmental impact, the expansion of village housing and gardening and the diversification of resources were hampered. In areas where large tea, rubber or coconut estates surrounded village land, actual landlessness became apparent around 1930, and led the authorities to attempt to stop indiscriminate alienation. According to the report on the census of 1911, “unless closely watched, there is little doubt that alienation of large areas of land for tea and rubber may adversely affect the villager not only by depriving him of grazing ground for his cattle, but by drying up sources which water his fields and, in spite of reservations, there is some reason to believe that there are cases in which this has occurred” [18].  In 1926 and 1927, cases of silting were given publicity during the sittings of the Land Commission which received petitions on the subject. In the Central province, “the silt problem in respect of the Gampolawela Rajaela has been a constant source of complaints for many years (…) At a representative meeting of the owners of estates above the ela and field owners the former promised to pay not more than 20 Rs an acre towards cost of overcrossings and signed an agreement to pay. Subsequent attempts to collect the money failed”. In the Matara district, “considerable damage caused to paddy cultivation by the washing down of silt from newly opened tea and rubber estates, particularly in the hilly regions of Morawak korale. In one village that I visited almost a whole valley has been permanently ruined by this cause”. In the Ratnapura district: “capitalists recklessly clear and plant right up to the edge of the fields and channels in complete disregard of the silting. Complaints of silt damage by such action are constantly received”. But such attitude was not prevailing in 1913, when E.B. Alexander, Government Agent of the same province, proposed to lease or sell stream reservations along his Rilhena estate to B.A. Thornhill, who had willfully planted them in rubber in 1910, commenting that “contrary to his predecessor Cookson, he thought that paddy cultivation would not be affected”.[19] The settlement officers were regularly confronted with these problems, for example, in Omatta village in 1933: “The grain tax commutation register and old plans showed that these owitas claimed were paddy fields some years back and silted. The villagers stated that the silting was caused by the opening out of the large rubber estates in the area: a good paddy field of 25 acres ruined by the silt from a steep plantation of rubber ; these fields were neglected during the days of rubber boom and the villagers inform that it is not worthwhile to cultivate these ruined fields”[20]

 

In the drier areas where tanks were used for paddy cultivation, their water storage capacity was reduced by silt. In some cases, reservoirs were included in the estates and planted up: there were several such occurrences in the Nuwara Eliya district during the coffee era which came to light when villagers protested. For example, in Uda Hewaheta, a tank which irrigated 200 acres was sold in 1864 as forest to the Amunumulla coffee estate: “The earnestness and pertinacy with which these unfortunate villagers represent their grievance is of itself sufficient to shew that it is substantial”[21] Much later, in the coconut belt, many similar cases occurred and similar complaints were aired. For example, near Giriulla, “a small abandoned tank which an estate proprietor wanted to purchase (…) the villagers at once claimed that it was essential for their fields and have started vigorously clearing the bund and channel”. Near Dandagamuwa: “ There is a small tank bordered on three sides by a large coconut estate whose proprietor, Dr. A.S. Goonewardena of Panadura, claims the tank as his private property He contended that the tank was formerly a paddy field purchased by his father-in-law, and that the tank was in reality a water hole dug up by the estate for the use of cattle. But the northern boundary according to his deeds is a tank bund, which clearly indicated the existence of a tank before the purchase (…) The villagers stated that the tank existed from time immemorial and that the estate took possession of it and attempted to convert it into a paddy field only about 25 years ago. They ask that the tank be reserved as at present they have to depend solely on rain water to cultivate their paddy fields”. Near Narammala “About half the village is an extensive coconut estate belonging to Mr. Dodwell and co. The villagers complain that they could not cultivate their fields owing to want of water. There had been a large tank in the village but unfortunately it had been sold by Government several years ago (…) Villagers said what they needed was water; they said there was an abandoned tank which if restored would provide water for all the villages in the wasama. Inspected the tank, it is a sort of natural lake, the water from the hills and from springs is retained by a long ridge of living rock. There is a breach at one place about 10 ft. wide. Very many years ago when this breach was closed about 6 acres of land was submerged: the tank had then irrigated several paddy fields lower down. These are now coconut plantations”.[22]

 

Denial of peasant access to water by plantation owners or workers was regularly mentioned in the diaries of the Settlement officers working in the province of Uva, as in the case of Kirawanagama and Beraliyapola where springs dried, stream reservations were cleared, top soil and grass cover removed, water diverted towards estate lands[23]: “All the villagers complain very bitterly that the streams which irrigate the extensive paddy fields in the villages are gradually drying up. They stated that the streams had their sources within the estate above the village and that at the time when the lands belonging to the village were alienated, adequate reservations for the sources of the streams and their beds were made. The forests near the sources which incidentally serve as village forests for these villagers are being surreptitiously but regularly denudated of trees by labourers on the estate. The top soil within these forests up to a depth of 3 to 4 feet is being removed for the purpose of making compost manure (…) the reservations along streams have in many cases been leased to labourers and are planted in guinea grass. In addition, storage tanks have been built in the beds of streams and water is conveyed by pipes not only for the use of the labourers but for watering their gardens also. The villagers have petitioned government on several occasions but have so far not obtained redress”

 

In the North Western province, the highlands of Madure korale were sold by headmen to plantations, leaving little space for villagers[24]: “Gallewa, a very big village, a small acreage of which is claimed or owned by the villagers themselves. The best lands, that is those on the hillsides, and tops, have been sold to a company (…) Mahawela, a village very similar to Gallewa except that more land here has been sold to outsiders. It is sad to see the villagers forced to live in the unhealthy villages, whilst the healthy hillsides and hilltops are in the possession of outsiders. The villagers complained to me that owing to the location of the estate on the hill, their fields were being deprived of water. Another complaint was that oil in the elas leading through this estate spoils their sources of drinking water and even ruin their fields. Superintendents in these malarial districts are in the habit of pouring oil into stagnant pools of water found in elas in the view of preventing mosquito breeding, but they scarcely realize what untold damage is done to paddy crops and villagers. I saw in one ela oily water trickling into the Deduru Oya, and the water in the river just beneath rubber estate full of oil at a spot where a villager was trying to make his buffaloes drink”. “Pahala Ogodapola is a small village inhabited only by 9 families. Irrigation facilities in the village could have been improved by restoring an abandoned tank found in the village but unfortunately part of the tank bed has been alienated by the Crown many years ago to the estate: this portion has now been planted up by the estate. Pasture land according to the villagers is their most pressing need [it is forbidden on Delwita estate]. Most of their cattle are now being pastured far away in Dodangaslanda on estates belonging to the Senanayake and Kotelawala families”

 

In an indirect way, paddy cultivation may have been affected by the restriction of pasture land reducing the numbers and impairing the health of buffaloes. Cattle were taken for grazing on the unforested highlands (patanas) in areas such as Uva and Dolosbage, or on the regrowth of vegetation after a chena season in the mid-country, and these grazing grounds were quite often sold as Crown lands to planters. Roberts denies any such impact; according to him buffaloes were not regularly required in paddy cultivation, and the actual reduction in their numbers was the result of epidemics brought from India rather than contraction of the available space. If he is right in explaining the diminution of buffaloes by the occurrence of cattle murrain or rinderpest, the fact that buffaloes could no longer recruit their health in up-country areas must have exposed them more than before to the attacks. In addition, cattle trespass on unfenced estates was from the beginning a major source of tension between planters and villagers: animals still roamed in areas where they used to graze at large before the opening of plantations.

 

Besides environmental factors affecting paddy cultivation, the much higher profits which could be derived from plantation products between 1900 and 1930 was indirectly responsible for the abandonment of paddy fields and their planting up in rubber or coconut after 1900. Conversion into coconut was common in the Kurunegala district. The Settlement Officer Fraser noticed in 1905 the process at work in Horambawa near Katugampola and his successors Luddington and Leach compared in 1927 the situation with the surveys effected during the previous decade in the villages of Konaputuhera, Medagama, Dodampawela, Wirambuwa where the disappearance of paddy was marked. In Madakumburumulla where an estate claimed a tank whose bund was made up of an outcrop of solid rock in an ideal situation, “1000 acres were practically planted up”; in Bagoda “a large amount of abandoned paddy, reason, shortage of cattle, yet this village offers the best grazing ground I have seen yet,”; in Henmulla where the villagers had only the reservations for the fields left; in Henegedara where many of the paddy fields were being converted into coconut gardens, and were coveted by the landgrabber F.H. Jayawardene[25]. Conversion of paddy fields into rubber plantations was also frequent in Western and Southern provinces. It was already noticed in 1917 by the Kalutara Revenue officer[26]: “This has become a perfect craze and if nothing happens to check it, there is no doubt that in a few years it will entirely supplant the cultivation of food. Hundreds of acres [more than 1000 acres] of owita lands which used to produce only food or were used as pasturage have gone into rubber and even extensive tracts of paddy fields are similarly treated”.   The Government agent of Galle made the same remark in 1916 and 1925: “the planting up with rubber of all the available small village lots is becoming very general throughout the district. Paddy fields covered with silt become rubber gardens, and the same product is gradually pushing out cinnamon and citronella” “the tendency is I think rather to forsake paddy growing for the more remunerative culture of tea, rubber and coconuts, and wherever possible low lying deniyas are being drained and planted with rubber”.    

 

*

 

On the basis of general assessments in various reports and scattered evidence, it is difficult to establish the extent and time continuance of the impact. By focusing on a particular area over a long period, one can try to overcome the difficulty. Scanning systematically through the diaries of the Assistant Government Agent in Kägalla from the 1870 to the 1932, one finds regular occurrences of erosion, silting, water diversion etc. which, even if they cannot be measured, at least demonstrate their prevalence.[27]

 

The first recorded occurrences of silting and landslides predate the major expansion of plantations and may have been connected with exceptionally heavy rains and with forest felling for lumber on the steep slopes above the valley of the We Oya:  : “the few fields we passed [above Bulatkopitiya] were much injured by the elas overflowing and covering the fields with sand and stones” (20.11.1871) Dramatic floods, 600 houses destroyed, cattle drowned, paddy crop lost for 2 seasons (23.09.1872). Landslide and silting at Uduwewela, “a process that has been going on gradually for the last 3 or 4 years” (16.11.1872).

At the same time, the first infringement by planters to paddy cultivation is recorded in the Aranayake area: “Complaint is made that the ela which conducts the water to Rahala and Selawa fields (in all 30 acres) cannot be repaired as it passes through the Getakohoella estate and the superintendent here will not permit the villagers to enter the estate. Headmen ordered to make a respectful [sic] representation” (21.06.1873)

 

With the extension of tea estates to the Kelani valley in 1885, silting cases became a common occurrence: “bathing pools are now choked up with sand and wash from tea estates” (23.03.1885, Yogama).   “Ekneligoda [the chief headman] sends a list of paddy fields in the Three korales covered over and rendered useless by the wash from ten estates. On the face of the report there would appear to be a case for compensation on the part of the Government who sold the land or of the planters who opened it” (15.07.1885). Among these cases, that of Ardross estate affecting Panawitiya village is exemplary: half the forest highlands appropriated by the Crown by the ‘Ievers chena settlement’ had been sold to the planter without proper protection of the paddy fields : “Inspected a range of fields that had been thrown out of cultivation by the wash from Ardross estate. The fields are irrigated by a channel which is filled by means of a dam close to the estate store. The dam has been broken down and the channel has been silted up. After some conversation with the villagers and Mr. Streeting, the superintendent of the estate, we came to the following agreement, that the superintendent was to rebuild the dam and clear the channel, but that I was to pay him 10 Rs as the villager’s share of the work; that in the future the estate and the villagers were to keep the dam and ela in repair, the estate giving two men and the villager one man on the work for such repairs” But the proprietor Mc. Martin practically repudiated the agreement” (31.07.1885). Eight years later, the trouble to paddy cultivation was not over: “By clearing and planting tea on either side of the watercourse, it has been filled up with the silt of the estate and dried up, and therefore it is difficult to take water now to the field. Since the past year, the cultivation of this field has been given up. This watercourse cannot be repaired but should be constructed anew”[28] . Another case was that of Kanangama estate: “I found that the fields had been silted up as stated, and as there appeared to be no way by which the wash could be stopped, I suggested the manager that the estate should buy the fields. He said the proprietor [Fairweather] would we willing to do this” Fairweather proposed 10 Rs per acre: “I do not think this is a fair price, he should pay at least double this in my opinion” Finally the price was fixed at 20 Rs. (3.10.1885).

 

In the 1891s, the preoccupation of the villagers with the impact of plantation development on paddy cultivation began to be more vocal, if the numerous petitions are considered as a reliable indicator of their opinion, as in this typical example[29] : “ They are the owners of the paddy field called Menewasam kumbura, they pay tax for it, and their names are entered in the commutation register. The two waste bits of land called pillewas which lie on either side of the said paddy field, upper and lower portion, also belong to them, of about 1 pela in extent, extending as far as the cry, which can easily be asweddumized, was to their great regret and surprise surveyed by government surveyor, while surveying the Crown land on the other side of the oya. Also their paddy field called Hiddelana kumbura adjoining the ela, a portion of which field is washed off by the high water of the said ela. That the petitioners having reason to suspect that they will be put into great inconvenience and hardship should the said pillewas or chenas be sold for tea estates, as they have not much of land to protect their fields and as they can asweddumize. Petitioners pray that they may be allowed to cut a ditch on the other side of the ela and secure the field from being washed off”. Confrontations between planters and villagers became more frequent, as in Ganapalla: “Countercharges between the villagers and the superintendent. Ganapalla estate is in the wrong, having silted up half a range of fields. Some fields he arranged to buy out, 40 Rs an acre, and make a present to his neighbours. For the rest he will make a channel” (19.07 and 6.09.1892). Or in Kanuggala: Lyndhurst estate tapping a stream for their turbine deprived Uda Kanuggala paddy cultivators of their water supply and they lost one year of crop. The estate “would have a weak case in court as it uses water to which the fields have prior right” (10.09.1892 and 22.11.1892). Or in Rangegama[30]: “About 8 or 10 years ago, a share of the forest lands of the said gamwasama was taken to the Crown and sold to the tea planters. Since the planting the memorialist fields are covered with sand washed down from the clearings and in another year or two all the fields will have to be abandoned as heaps of sand. If the proprietors of the Rangegama estate wanted to save the memorialists fields from being covered with silt he could have done so by opening a large drain  to carry the wash away to the stream, but no such consideration for the villagers property and their loss are entertained by most of the planters.”.

 

The colonial administration was split between pro-planters and defenders of the natural resources. Between 1895 and 1897, Frederick Lewis of the Forest department warned that “the Kelani will silt up so as to render boat traffic almost impossible by 1898. As he can give chapter and verse for what he says based perhaps on the most intimate knowledge of all the rivers which any European possesses, he should be examined by the Kelani valley railway commission” (1.03.1895), and his superior, in response to the critics of the planters voiced by T.N. Christie, pointed out that  “In Ceylon constant complaints are made of the gradual silting up of the Kelani Ganga. If reference is made to a map showing Crown lands it will be seen that it is the catchment area of this river which has suffered most from denudation”[31]. In the case of Karandupone estate, while in 1898 the Agent considered that it had to pay damages to the villagers whose lands had been taken to build the estate road or silted by the estate (15.12.1898), his successor declared (31.03.1904): “I am afraid the villagers are very slack and have been trading on getting compensation out of the estate at infinitum. The bund of the channel is in a hopeless state of neglect, I have warned them to repair the beaches. But I don’t think they mean to do anything except temporary patchwork. They have no communal labour on their field works in this district. Each man is supposed to look after his own little portion and if a slip occurs which he can’t cope with it can’t be helped. Now that a final settlement with the estate had been made the villagers will be forced to safeguard their interests or lose by their neglect” . And while a soil denudation commission of 1904 had recommended that no land whatever should be alienated in the proposed Kelani valley reserve “on account of the great danger of soil erosion and the consequent flooding of the Kelani river”, the Kägalla Agent provided a limited list of 9 cases of silting, including only one extensive case, that of Yatideriya estate at Undugoda ( 14 fields silted for the last 15 years)[32]  

 

In spite of these findings and protests, the cases of silting and troubles to water management continued: “Silt piled 4ft. high on a native man’s paddy field below the Ettie estate drain which led right on to this field” (2.11.1896). And the attempts by planters to encroach on villagers’ rights did not cease: “Mr. Stuart of Inguragalla estate wants to buy some land at Aranayake which has been reserved for the protection of paddy fields below. He seems to think there is a poor reason for reservation. I admit it may seem a poor one to an intending purchaser, but not to the paddy field owner” (8.01.1898). “Complaint by the village headman about Yatideriya factory diverting all the water of the Andawela stream” (12.08.1899). Hatbawe ela diverted by the estate (20.06.1908)

 

By the beginning of the 20th century, there was a rush to develop rubber estates at lower elevations, often in association with tea section on the upper slopes (21.04.1910 – 16.10.1910) and the environmental impact of initial felling was similar to that of the opening of tea estates, as in the case of Niyadurupola rubber estate: “Half of the fields covered with sand and stones and ela almost obliterated. The superintendent undertakes to have the ela cleared and with much forbearance the field owners accept this. I told them that if they went to court they would secure substantial damage for loss of their crops (…) Complaints made against the aracci of Bopitiya and other headmen by Mr. Crocker the superintendent. The Ratemahatmaya reported that during the enquiry held by him into these complaints at the estate bungalow Mr. Crocker assaulted the aracci of Bopitiya” Crocker was fined of 50 Rs for that. A new superintendent (Robb) “pays no attention to the Agent’s representations” and was menaced to be sued for silting the Batuwana oya and fields (5.10.1911). But the repair of the oya by Robb was so defective that it has been washed away at the first rains (12.12.1912)

 

Between 1910 and 1920, in a political context marked by the violent repression by armed planters of ethnic disturbances by Sinhalese against Muslim traders, the administrators of the district were constantly compelled to mediate between planters and villagers affected by silting and other troubles. At Knavesmire, Glenalla and Katugaha estates (10.05.1910); at Asgangula, Mayfair estate (Ambepussa), Gasnawa and Eadella (December 1912 – February 1913); at Gevilipitiya and Duldeniya (August 1913); at Ambadeniya (September 1913); at Getiyamulla, “channel completely filled up by silt from Yatideriya. The superintendent refuses to do anything on the ground that there is an amuna at the head of the fields. This has been in existence for years and the ela was not silted before the clearing of the estate” (18.01.1914); along the Hettimulla – Hatgampola road (29.10.1914). “Galapitamada superintendent refuses to pay on the ground that the damage was due to the field owners having neglected their elas” (28.01.1918); peasants petition against Nagolla estate which diverts the water irrigating Karandupone fields (25.03.1918); silting by Para estate and near Galigamuwa (10.07 and 8.10.1918); a bad case of silting at Liniyakaduwa by Gasnawa estate (19.09.1919); silting by Pallegama estate silting at Galapitamada (10.06.1919 and 21.10.1920); bad silting by Karandupone estate (11.12.1919); by Golinda estate (8.05.1920).

 

In his Administration report for 1914, the Assistant Agent Burden mentioned the numerous cases linked with the new rubber clearings in the Four and Three korales and considered that stream reservations were non-efficient to prevent the mud being carried by the drains: “The silting up of the Sitawaka river if it continues much further will result in a situation of seriousness for Dehiowita (…) the drainage from the bazaar does not flow into the river (…) The only remedy is for clearing of forest and chena for tea and rubber cultivation to cease for some years. The rivers and streams will then have an opportunity of cutting their way through their original beds again” But nothing was done and on 24.05.1927 another Agent wrote in his diary: “ at Dehiowita the Public Works department had been unjustly blamed for blocking up an ela, when the real trouble is the failure of the natural drainage system throughout the upper Kelani valley owing to silt from innumerable estates. I am told the bed of the Sitawaka ganga has been raised by no less than 20 ft.. It seems time that stringent rules were made with regard to the method of opening up land on these steep hill sides and the growing of cover crops might be made compulsory on all rubber estates in the wet zone”. In another area, “floods around Bulatkopitiya are not an annual but a monthly occurrence, and I am convinced that Government will be very badly advised to allow the felling of any more jungle on hilltops in the Kägalla district. The jungle on hill tops acts as a sponge and holds up moisture, in a way that clean weeded rubber estates do not” (30.06.1920)

 

With the post-war rubber boom of the 1920s, cases of silting continued unabated in spite of a new awareness of the effects of indiscriminate clearings. At Ussapitiya : “about 6 acres of paddy fields badly silted by the result of the overflow of the ela, caused it is said by the new clearing of the Elapalawa estate (…) The ela running through and into this yaya was sufficient to carry all the refuse water of this little valley until the hills were cleared and opened in tea and rubber. Thereafter the volume of water increased suddenly by about six-fold and the ela no longer served as a watercourse, and the stream flowed over its banks and devastated the paddy fields. In one place I dug through the deposit of silt for 3 ft. and still did not reach the mud of the paddy field below. The water has made a new course straight to the fields and has breached and crossed the old ela carving out a fairly deep gully through the lower fields. The villagers told me that Mr. Ondaatje proctor is negotiating with them on behalf of the Elapalawa estate.” (24.07.1920)  “The people of Etnawala have made some attempt at self help in clearing away silt which has come down from Etnawala estate. A considerable amount has been deposited at one end of the fields and the cultivators have removed and heaped it up in mounds at intervals. The option of compensation is still being discussed by the superintendent and villagers, but the estate does not deny liability” (22.09.1920); at Arama near Aranayake, the Government refused to sell land: “if the jungle is felled damage will be caused to the paddy fields below as these latter have been eating into the jungle and the banks are consequently very steep” (19.10.1920); at Siyambalawela “silting from estates have filled up the channel, causing flood water to overflow and breach the banks. Thereafter all the silt appears to have been carried through the breaches leaving the channel deeper than it was originally, a deplorable result as the level appears now too low to feed certains of the fields. Such are the results of the accursed system of clean weeding, which ought to be legally abolished in all rubber and tea producing countries” (19.11.1923); at Watura “the whole valley, like so many valleys in this district, has become blocked with silt by the opening of rubber lands during the last 1-15 years. The oya has changed its course, lost its depth, and a large extent of paddy has been rendered useless. Nothing could now be done except at enormous expense and with small chance of permanent success” (15.04.1924)

 

Between 1925 and 1930, the Kägalla diaries are filled with a litany of silting cases, especially after 1926 when the government began to consider the necessity of a new land policy and the rural population became conscious of its new political power. This is a list of such cases: at Kendawe (22.05.1925); at Labugolla estate: where the paddy field owner refused the compensation offered

(6.08.1925); at Alagalla, where villagers protested against the silting resulting from the reopening of a former coffee plantation (6.05.1926); by Eadella estate (18.09.1926); by Panana estate where “there is plenty of silt but the damaged land does not belong to the petitioner at all, the claim is nothing but an impudent attempt to extort payment from the estate and at the same time establish some sort of claim to the land” (3.12.1926 and 6.04.1927);  at Parakaduwa (12.01.1927); Gonapalla (23.01.1927); at Epalawa “the main ela has been blocked with sand and breached in several places, its restoration will be rather a big job and is certainly a case for inspection by the department of irrigation” (5.06.1927);  at Eheliyagoda “the damage extends to many acres and the case is the worst I have ever seen. At least three estates are to blame and it will be difficult to assess compensation if this is to be paid” (7.06.1927); by Para estate (21.09.1927); by Forest Hill estate (14.03.1928); by Epalawa estate (20.03.1928 and 4.03.1930); by Millangoda estate where “the trouble is particularly bad though the estate has already spent a considerable sum in remedial measures. It is a pity that estate superintendents do not consult the irrigation department before opening new clearings in the neighborhood of paddy fields. If scientific methods were adopted much of the damage caused by silting could probably be avoided” (5.12.1928); at Naranbedda by the planter of Taptonwood estate who got land on re-afforestation lease and planted jak and papaw without proper care to paddy fields below (17.06.1928, 22.04.1929 and 16.07.1929);  at Anhettigama by Noori estate (29.04.1929); by Rosyth estate, where “the superintendent accepts to pay compensation, but it is always difficult matter to apportion the responsibility fairly in these cases” (11.04 and 15.06.1929); at Asmadala and Kandegedara  (16-17.07.1929); at Levuke (2.09.1929); at Dunumale near Galapitamada (7.11.1929); at Burunnawa (14.11.1929). Giving evidence before the Soil erosion committee (5.09.1929), the Kägalla agent declared: “the silt almost always comes from new clearings”.

 

The last serious cases of silting were reported in 1930: 6.01: We Oya estate; 8.02: Duldeniya; 12.02: Pohorambe; 27.02: Udehenkanda; 3.03: Meneripitiya, 4.03: Epalawa; 9.07: Biddescar; 18.07: Tismalpola; 2.09: We Oya again; 18.11: Udagaldeniya; 17.12: Jinsena. Two years later, rubber plantation expansion had been stopped by the great depression, and the Government Agent of the province reported that “there has been very little trouble from silting. The partial abandonment of rubber, which has resulted in increase of undergrowth among the rubber trees has also had its effect”.[33]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

[1] See my contribution to Richard Grove, Vinitha Damodaran and Satpal Sangwan (eds.) Nature and the Orient, Essays on the environmental history of South and South East Asia. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.793-827, and my recent papers “Highland Appropriation by the Plantation Sector in the Kägalla District (1870-1930)”

https://slkdiaspo.hypotheses.org/6732; “The Ceylon land settlement department and its fight against land speculation from 1897 to 1930” https://slkdiaspo.hypotheses.org/6950; “Towards a new land policy in the Kandyan regions: from the Ceylon Land Commission of 1927-1928 to the Kandyan Peasantry Commission of 1949-1950” https://slkdiaspo.hypotheses.org/6972

[2] Ceylon sessional paper n° 3 of 1931: report on soil erosion in Ceylon

[3] Ceylon sessional paper n° 43 of 1882

[4] Ceylon Sessional paper n° 11 of 1894, Sessional paper n° 22 of 1895 (the report includes a list of all the estates in the Kelani catchment area in 1895 with their acreage – cultivated and uncultivated), Sessional paper n° 42 of 1905 (the report includes a list of estates affected by silting)

[5] Ceylon sessional paper n° 12 of 1921

[6] as early as 1847, the Kandyan chiefs complained of the Waste lands ordinance of 1840 which established the Crown property of highlands and their alienability to planters: they “did not cut down the timber in some parts of their lands for fear the rivulets and water courses should become dried up by exposure. If the government claims these as forest lands, what was to become of them all?” Colonial Office Records, series 54 /238 Torrington to Secretary of State for the Colonies 12.08.1847 encl 2, Notes of the 1st conference held at Kandy 29.07.47 with a deputation of chiefs and priests of the Kandyan Provinces.

[7] Ceylon Hansard, 13.12.1934 p. 3204

[8] Report of the Kandyan Peasantry Commission, Ceylon Sessional Paper of 1951; the memoranda sent by various individuals and local societies, often written by teachers on notebooks, most of them in Sinhala, some in the form of village monographs, are kept in the Kandy repository of the National Archives (108/28). The dualist thesis is defended by R. Snodgraas, Ceylon, an Export Economy in Transition. Homewood, Irwin, 1966. M. Roberts, “The Impact of the Waste Lands Legislation and the Growth of Plantations on the Techniques of Paddy Cultivation in British Ceylon: a Critique”, Modern Ceylon Studies 2, 1970, p. 157-196. On dualism, see also my “Village versus plantation: colonial and post-colonial ideologies and practices” [http://slkdiaspo.hypotheses.org/5110]

[9] CO54/432, 12.01.1868

[10] SLNA 47/1 Diary Assistant Agent Nuwara Eliya, 4.08.1884, 6.12.1882, 18.04.1885, 9.11.1886. Administration report of Nuwara Eliya for 1884 (p. 65-66A); Paddy tax reassessment report for Uda Hewaheta, Ceylon Sessional Paper 14 of 1890; Moir report in Governor Gordon to Knutsford, 22.10.1889 reproduced in Eastern pamphlet 52; Administration report Central province 1883, p. 23A; Administration report Matale 1883. CO 54/517, Governor of Ceylon to Secretary of State for the Colonies,126, 29.03.1879; see also Report of the Kandyan Peasantry Commission, Sessional Paper of 1951, p. 116-117. Sessional Paper n° 43 of 1882 (D’A Vincent report), § 110-114.

[11] J. Emerson Tennent, Ceylon, London 1859,  vol II, p. 206; Ceylon SP n° 4 of 1867, (Report on irrigation in Ceylon);  SP n° 43 of 1882 (D’A Vincent report), § 100-103; Grain tax commission report Sessional paper of 1877);  Sessional Paper 12 of 1921 (Lushington report). See also for a later period I.D.T. de Mel, ‘Comparison of rainfall over Ceylon during the two 30-years periods 1911-40 – 1931-60’, Tropical Agriculturist 127, 1 (1971), and Meher Homji, ‘Do Forests influence the climate?’, Science Today 16, 1 (1982).  

 

[12] Quoted in Gordon to Knutsford, Secretary of State for the colonies dated 22.10.1889 (Eastern Pamphlets n°52, HMSO)

[13] CO54/518, Governor to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 29.04.1879; SLNA 30 Diary of the Assistant Government Agent at Kägalla, 21.02.1885, 1.03.1895.   

[14] CO54/586, 60 17.02.1890; SLNA 6/10990 RN017579 13.11.1897

[15] Administration reports for Matale 1894 and 1896, 1901, Ceylon Sessional paper n°4 of 1890, Administration report for Uva, 1898.

[16] Examples in Ceylon Administration Reports   Central Province, 1926; Matara district, 1927 and 1928; Diaries of the District Agent Kägalla, July 1920 and April 1924; Diaries of the Land Settlement Officers, October 1933 (Kalutara district); Ceylon Sessional Paper of 1951, Report of the Kandyan Peasantry Commission, p. 316-317

[17] Ceylon Sessional paper n° 6 of 1908

[18] E.B. Denham, Ceylon at the Census of 1911, Colombo, Government printer, 1912, p. 115

[19] Administration report of the Central Province 1926, p. B9, § 119; Administration report for Matara 1927, p. C23 and 1928 p. C5 (the villages affected were: Tambe, Malinibada, Wellana, Molokgamuwa, Rambukana, Diddenipota, Henegama, Akuressa, Ketenwala, Makandure, Beragama, Dankoluwa, Banagala, Eramudugoda, Nimaluwa, Kekunewela, Waralla) ; Administration report Ratnapura for 1926, p. I9, SLNA lot 6, box 761, RN02499, 4.02.1913 and box 814 (Rilhena)

[20] Diaries of the Settlement officer and of the Assistant settlement officer Rajasingham, October 1933

[21] Sessional Paper 2 of 1872-3, Report of the Assistant Agent at Nuwara Eliya (Hartshorne) on the paddy cultivation ordinance

[22] Diary Kurunegala 26.10.1922: Diaries Assistant Settlement Officer P.O. Fernando, 23.09.1930, 11.02.1931; Ratnatunga 28.04.1938

[23] Diaries of Assistant Settlement Officers Ingledow, March 1936 and Abeyakoon, August 1939

[24] Diaries of the Assistant Settlement Officers Arndt 20 and 21.08.1930 and Wijekoon, 28.01.1939.

[25] Diaries of Fraser, 11.12.1905, Luddington, February to August 1927, Leach, January 1927.

[26] Administration report Kalutara 1917 (Brayne) p. A16-17; Diary of the Assistant Settlement officer Hughes, 6.12.1923 (Edandagoda village); Administration report of the Southern Province for 1916, p. C2 and 1925 p. C2; Diaries of Assistant settlement officers Hughes, 25.08.1924 (Hattaka village) , 1.09.1924 (Godamuke), Egan, 11.04.1927

[27] SLNA 30/2 (1861) to 30/60 (1939): references to the diaries are given in text between brackets.

[28] Kägalla kachcheri records, Panawitiya village file, report by Ekneligoda, 19.01.1893

[29] Kägalla kachcheri records, Basnagoda village, petition 469 of 1891 of Wickramaccilage Jotihami

[30] SLNA 6/10290, 18.10.1897

[31] CO54/637 (18.02.1897)

[32] Ceylon Sessional Paper 42 of 1905, appendix 6

[33]   Administration report Sabaragamuwa 1932 p.I7