COHRE Sri Lanka Newsletter No.16 2011

Centre on Housing Rights & Evic tions

Issue No.16 - May 2011

Sri Lanka Newsletter 2011

16

N°

Centre on Housing Rights & Evic tions

contentS Editorial P2 Sri Lankan women’s rights reviewed on the international stage p3 A piece of land to call her own p8 COHRE conducts housing rights trainings p12 Women’s housing, land and property rights in Sri Lanka P15

EDITORIAL Advocating for women’s rights In this 16th edition of the COHRE Sri Lanka Newsletter, we deal with the process whereby COHRE Sri Lanka submitted a Shadow Report to the 48th Session of the CEDAW Committee held in Geneva, Switzerland in January 2011. The process that took place at international level was one that highlighted the fact that informal lobbying of issues with CEDAW Committee members at the UN is a useful strategy.

The newsletter spells out the process of collecting information for the shadow report, attendance at the CEDAW sessions in Geneva and the follow up that is envisaged to urge the State to bring its policies in line with the CEDAW Concluding Observations. We include in the newsletter an article ‘A Piece of Land to Call Her Own’ written by Kumudini Hettiarachchi in the Sunday Times of 6th March 2011.

We hope you find this newsletter a useful guide to understanding how the UN treaty body processes work.

We welcome any comments, submission of case notes, articles and notices of relevant events on the right to housing in Sri Lanka.

If you have any comments, require additional copies, or wish to subscribe to the mailing list for the quarterly newsletter on housing, land and property rights in Sri Lanka, or for any further information, please contact the COHRE office located at 9/12 Cambridge Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka. Telephone/fax +94 11 2699559 or email cohresrilanka@cohre.org If you wish to share information in our newsletter on any upcoming events concerning housing, land and property rights planned by your respective organizations, please feel free to contact us.

COHRE Sri Lanka Team

Issue No.16 - May 2011

By Shyamala Gomez, COHRE’s Senior Programme Officer for Women’s Housing Rights

Sri Lankan women’s rights reviewed on the international stage The culmination of four years of advocacy by COHRE on two issues—the elimination of the head of the household concept from official documentation, and granting of joint ownership of state land—reached the international stage this year. COHRE’s Senior Programme Officer for Women’s Housing Rights, Shyamala Gomez, reports on the process.

The UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee, at its 48th Session held in Geneva earlier this year, reviewed the state reports of Bangladesh, South Africa, Belarus, Israel, Kenya, Lichtenstein and Sri Lanka.

The session, conducted from 17 January to 4 February 2011, saw the Sri Lankan government submit its 5th, 6th and 7th Periodic Reports to the CEDAW Committee for review. It is nine years since the last submission of a report by Sri Lanka.

COHRE submitted a Shadow Report for consideration to the CEDAW Committee. The Shadow Report dealt with two aspects of women’s access to land

rights in Sri Lanka: the elimination of the head of the household concept (HOH) from state-generated documentation, and the granting of state land in joint ownership (JO). The Shadow Report was supported by five organizations based in Sri Lanka: Women & Media Collective, a woman’s organisation based in Colombo; CARE International; Oxfam Australia; Muslim Women’s Research Action Forum (MWRAF); Estate Community Development Mission, a network of women’s organizations based in the plantation sector; and Praja Abhilaasha, a grassroots organisation working on rights issues.

The organisations were part of an advocacy group formed by COHRE to lobby on the issues of JO and HOH with the

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.3

Issue No.16 - May 2011

government. The advocacy group met periodically and COHRE kept the group informed of developments via electronic mail.

CEDAW Committee review On 24 January, an informal briefing with civil society was held. COHRE Sri Lanka participated at this session by presenting a statement that was submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) prior to the CEDAW sessions. A Q & A session was then conducted.

A lunch briefing with the CEDAW Committee members was held on the 25 January, the day preceding the review of the Sri Lanka State report by the Committee. A short presentation on the head of the household concept and on joint ownership of state land was made by COHRE. Approximately nine Committee members attended the lunch briefing with the Sri Lankan NGOs, including the Country Rapporteur for Sri Lanka. The publication on head of the household concept published

by COHRE, the suggested questions to be asked of the State delegation and suggested concluding observations were handed out to the Committee at the lunch briefing.

CEDAW Committee review of Sri Lanka’s State report The Committee then reviewed the Sri Lankan State report on 26 January in a full-day review.

Specific questions with regard to JO and HOH were asked by the Committee to the state delegation. The Expert (Committee member) from Spain referred to the COHRE publication on head of the household concept and asked the Committee whether the husband’s signature was required with regard to ownership of state land after the tsunami. The Sri Lankan delegation in response stated that discriminatory laws pertaining to land can be reviewed and that it had been done with regard to the preference for male heirs in the Land

Development Ordinance. The State went on to say that a bill to amend this discriminatory provision has been presented in Parliament, that Cabinet has approved it, and that there is a policy commitment to amend it.

The Committee also recommended that the head of the household terminology be changed, with reference to the COHRE study on head of the household. The Country Rapporteur for Sri Lanka, in her observations and questions to the State delegation, asked whether women are affected by the usage of head of the household terminology.

She also referred to the fact that single ownership of state land is not specified in any particular Another major concern of law and that the Committee was that all the law is open laws give full rights to men, ended. She which is connected to the requested the State to formu- requirement of families to late guidelines register ‘head of household’, in this respect. a practice that results in

“

indirect discrimination as

Another only men are designated. The CEDAW expert Committee therefore urged made many the government to change references to this practice. the head of the household Women’s International League for concept under Peace and Freedom Article 5 of CEDAW. She stated that it was a patriarchal concept and that 95 percent of men are regarded as head of the household. She stated that women should have a choice to sign a form and that the usage of this concept is indirect discrimination. She stated that although the term is gender-neutral, it is discriminatory in result. She emphasized that choices for registration must be open and asked the delegation the possibility of changing such terminology in order to change patriarchal attitudes.

„

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.4

Issue No.16 - May 2011

Another CEDAW expert commented to the State that review of legislative framework is necessary to integrate equality and specifically referred to land and head of the household as areas that required review.

of Lands and signed by the Secretary, Ministry of Lands to the Attorney General, asking for a legal opinion on the issue. After a series of discussions and communications, the Attorney General’s department issued a legal opinion stating that:

Under Article 13 of CEDAW, many references were made by the CEDAW “…in the light of the contents of your Committee to joint ownership of State letter and the provisions of the State land and the HOH concept. One Expert Lands Ordinance No.8 of 1947 as stated that women should be able to acamended and the Registration of cess loans and that the concept of HOH Title Act No.21 of 1998 as amended. I used by public administration deters am now of the opinion that the State women. She said that if women share Lands Ordinance No.8 of 1947 as ownership of land within the household, amended and the Registration of Title it will improve her status and she encouraged the State to take concrete action on this issue that women’s organisations have been working on for over four years.

The Country Rapporteur asked the State delegation if it would instruct the Land CommisCOHRE poster raising awareness of “head of household” concept, 2010 sioner to comply with the opinion of the Attorney GenAct No.21 of 1998 does not contain eral. A member of the State delegation any prohibition against making of stated that there is no prohibition on grants or other dispositions creating owning land jointly, and that they will co-ownership under the State Lands look into how best it can be implementOrdinance if it is the policy of the ed.

State.”

Advocacy: A process over four years Opinion of the Attorney General COHRE worked closely with the thenSecretary to the Ministry of Lands to approach the Attorney General (AG) for an opinion. A letter drafted by COHRE was sent under the aegis of the Ministry

The opinion of the AG is clear. There is no legal bar to the granting of joint ownership. The administrative practice of giving land in single ownership needs to be changed and a clear State policy needs to be affirmed that joint ownership should be the default procedure unless there are compelling arguments against. However the Commissioner CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.5

Issue No.16 - May 2011

General of Land has not complied yet with the opinion of the AG, despite COHRE’s efforts.

COHRE has lobbied over the years for co- or joint ownership where new land is given by the State.

However, it has consistently maintained that in specific situations, joint ownership is not suitable. Joint or co-ownership is not suitable in every instance

tries, Women’s Empowerment, Resettlement, Public Administration and Nation Building. COHRE also met with the then-Minister of Human Rights and Disaster Management and gained strong support for joint ownership of state land and elimination of head of the household concept. These one-onone meetings were held to brief these Ministries on the work of COHRE and to enlist their support in working towards the objective of JO and elimination of HOH. Creating awareness of JO and HOH

Street theatre for women’s housing rights (© COHRE 2010).

that the state allocates property. Where land is allocated by the State to compensate for land that has been lost, eg. due to a natural disaster or displacement, then the status of prior ownership needs to be taken into consideration. For example, where the title to land previously owned is not disputed, new State land title should be given to the previous landowner. In this instance, joint ownership is not suitable as the objective of the State must be to restore the prior status of the individual concerned. However, where the State compensates for land that was previously encroached or squatted upon, land title should be allocated in joint or co-ownership as there was no previous legal ownership. Another instance where joint ownership is suitable is where previous ownership of title is unclear or disputed or where co owners have contributed financially to the previously owned property.

Interaction with the State Several meetings with Ministries were held over the past four years. COHRE met with the Secretaries to the Ministries of Justice, Lands, Plantation Indus-

COHRE adopted a multi-pronged approach to create awareness among its partners and other civil society groups.

COHRE had several workshops with civil society NGOs and UN agencies. Many consultations and dialogues were held to discuss findings of research and to discuss strategies on the way forward.

The second-tier of programmes targeted government officials working with the community. Grama Niladharis, Women Development Officer, and other staff from the District Secretaries offices were invited to participate at these workshops where COHRE sought to create awareness of JO and HOH and also to seek their opinion on whether such changes could be brought to the state administrative structures.

The next tier of programmes targeted women leaders working at grassroots level. Workshops were held in Batticaloa and Hatton to bring to these women’s attention the issues of JO and HOH. Similar workshops were held in February 2010 in Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. The reports that were compiled upon completion of the above activities fed into the Shadow Report and served to enrich the report as it brought in the voices of women from grassroots level and also gave an opportunity for the voices of government officials to be heard.

These workshops brought the ‘real life’ situations or ‘reality’ into the report.

CEDAW sessions and informal lobbying The informal lobbying with CEDAW Committee CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.6

Issue No.16 - May 2011

members was an interesting process. At the outset, the Country Rapporteur (CR) was identified. The CR is the Committee member that reports on the assigned country. The Committee member from Japan, Ms. Yoko Hayashi was the CR for Sri Lanka. She was very approachable and willing to engage with the Sri Lankan NGO community. The COHRE representative made use of every available opportunity to engage with the CR and to supply her with information pertaining to the Shadow Report.

“The Committee urges the State party to: (d) Abolish the concept of “head of household” in administrative practice and recognize joint or co-ownership of land; and (e) Speedily amend the Land Develop-

Follow up to CEDAW Sessions and Concluding Observations

ment Ordinance in order to ensure that joint or co-ownership be granted to both

COHRE will take follow up action to look at ways and means of implementing the Concluding Observations of the CEDAW Committee, with reference to the COHRE shadow report. The follow-up will be carried out in consultation with the lobby group that supported the report. Follow-up activities include the use of media to create awareness on these two issues of head of the household and joint ownership of state land, meetings with the Attorney General’s Department, one-onone meetings with relevant Ministries, wide dissemination of the Shadow Report and the Concluding Observations for implementation by the State and other targeted programmes.

The objective is to abolish the head of the household concept from official documentation and also to ensure that joint ownership of state land is given when lands are granted by the State.

spouses when the State allocates land to married couples.”

Direct link to Concluding Observations of the CEDAW Committee on Sri Lanka: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ cedaw/docs/co/CEDAW-C-LKA-CO-7. pdf Link to COHRE Sri Lanka Shadow Report: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/COHRE_ CEDAW_48th.pdf Link to press release by COHRE, ‘UN Issues Landmark Recommendations on Women’s Housing Rights’: http://www. cohre.org/news/press-releases/un-

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.7

Issue No.16 - May 2011

By Kumudini Hettiarachchi

A piece of land to call her own Following a shadow report presented by the non-governmental organisation, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), a UN body urges Sri Lanka to recognize joint or co-ownership for both men and women when the State allocates land to married couples. Kumudini Hettiarachchi reports in the Sunday Times.

This article first appeared in the Sunday Times on 6 March 2011. To see the article, visit: http://sundaytimes.

For a country that boasts of being the first in the world to have a woman Prime Minister way back in 1960, “urgings� by a top UN watch-dog on the rights of women come as the proverbial drop of cow-dung in a pot of milk.

lk/110306/Plus/ plus_08.html

The urgings by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on joint land ownership for both men and women whenever state lands are distributed to families have been made at its 48th session held from January 17-February 4, this year.

While urging Sri Lanka to recognize joint or co-ownership of land, CEDAW has also stated the need to speedily amend the Land Development Ordinance to ensure that joint or coownership is granted to both spouses

when the state allocates land to married couples.

The focus on joint or co-ownership whenever state land is distributed not only under routine schemes but also when families are displaced by conflict or disasters or land is allocated to the plantation workers has been lobbied by many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which see the plight of women left in the lurch without home and hearth, the Sunday Times learns.

However, amendments to the archaic Land Development Ordinance have not gone beyond Parliament, though these crucial issues have been discussed at length, it is understood. This was the first time that the issue of joint or coownership of land was taken up at the

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.8

Issue No.16 - May 2011

CEDAW sessions in Geneva, following a shadow report presented by the NGO, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), which had formed a lobby group in 2009 to advocate this matter.

The lobby group consists of international NGOs CARE International and Oxfam Australia; the grassroots network Praja Abhilaasha; the women’s organizations Women and Media Collective and the Muslim Women’s Research and Action Forum; and the Estate Community Development Mission representing the plantation sector.

Explaining that joint ownership of land whenever the state distributes it to families would help in ensuring equality between married couples, it may contribute to the prevention of family disputes as the woman is also empowered, COHRE’s Shyamala Gomez, the Senior Programme Officer for Women’s Housing Rights stresses. Single ownership in these instances violates the core right of every person in this country which ensures equality before the law.

Whether the land is given to the man or the woman, there is discrimination in single ownership, she says, adding that most often it is the man who gets the land because he signs all the documents and applies for the land. Although there’s no bar to women applying and in some instances they do, regrettably the majority either due to the inherent culture or pressure by men tend to allow the men to sign the papers. Thus the women get disentitled.

“If men and women are equal as ensured categorically by the Constitution, then public officials when alienating state land must do so under joint ownership,” says Ms. Gomez, pointing out that when COHRE approached the Commissioner-General of Land the counter argument put forward was that the law prohibits joint ownership. “It was an uphill task,” she says, adding that they then sought the opinion of the Attorney-General and also went to the grassroots not only talking to the women (see box) but also government officials.

The Attorney-General’s opinion was clear - the issue is open-ended, she says, with no prohibition of joint ownership. But in practice it was a different matter, even after the Commissioner-General of Land was informed. The AG had stated that the law……”does not contain any prohibition against making of grants or other dispositions creating coownership……”

Think of the consequences of single ownership, urges Ms. Gomez, pointing out that in this patriarchal society, the man will sign all the documents and once the land is given in his name, the woman will be at his mercy.

Head of the household’ concept being discussed at Bogawantalawa. Pix by M.A. Pushpa Kumara

COHRE’s shadow report quotes research that discloses how women are not given equal access to state-allocated land. An example is the Mahweli area where although 20% of the land in the old villages had been owned by women, in the newlysettled villages the land is almost entirely owned by men.

Why is joint ownership such a vital issue? “Without a piece of land to call their own and put down roots, women have been left high and dry. They are not empowered because even to find some economic security or begin a self-employment project they can’t get bank loans. If they had joint ownership, the land could be used as collateral,” says Ms. Gomez.

COHRE and its partners are not fighting for the sun and the moon for women, only an equal place CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.9

Issue No.16 - May 2011

in the sun for both men and women.

Joint ownership, while promoting equality, may very well contribute to a reduction in domestic violence in the country because the women will be empowered, says Ms. Gomez whose battles have been justified by CEDAW. Her plea is simple - give the humble women of Sri Lanka their rightful place in the family by granting joint ownership of state land because with it will come dignity as well. This plea is silently echoed by the thousands, nay millions of women who toil alongside their husbands not only to ensure the wellbeing of the family but also the development of the country.

No discrimination in distribution of state land Nearly 50% of the 1.2 million land parcels allocated by the state under the Land Development Ordinance are owned by women, stresses Additional Secretary (Lands), S.D.A.B. Boralessa of the Lands Ministry when contacted by the Sunday Times, pointing out that it is the family unit that is taken into account in such allocations.

Explaining that there is no discrimination against women in the first instance, as either spouse who signs the application will get the land, he says that the problems arise thereafter when the parcel goes to the next generation if the owner has not nominated an inheritor.

Tracing the inheritance policy as specified by the Land Development Ordinance, the Additional Secretary says the person who signs the application, most probably after discussion with the

spouse gets the land, with life interest being assured for the spouse, be it a woman or a man.

Joint ownership will also cause problems about a clear title, and to pinpoint who will be responsible in developing the land, which is mandatory, will be difficult. Under the Land Development Ordinance, if the lot is not developed it can be taken back by the state.

If the owner dies without nominating an heir, then according to the Third Schedule of the Ordinance, the land will go to the first category, the sons. The daughters come after that. This is where we have got many complaints and that’s why an amendment seeking the first heirs as “children” and not “sons” followed by “daughters” is being Think of the consequences of sought from Parlia- single ownership...the man will sign ment, he says.

“

all the documents and once the land is given in his name, the woBut amendments have run into snags man will be at his mercy.

„

because land alien- Shyamala Gomez, COHRE ation is devolved and subject to restrictions and Provincial Councils have a say in it, the Sunday Times understands.

For Mr. Boralessa, however, the discrimination against women comes not in the allocation of state land but in the inheritance of private land under the civil law.

Although 80% of the land in Sri Lanka is state land, we have distributed only 1.5 million parcels (1.2m under the Land Development Ordinance to landless peasants and 0.3m under the Crown Lands Ordinance to those in urban areas), he says, adding that although the balance 20% is owned privately, there are 20m

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.10

Issue No.16 - May 2011

land parcels which cause much discrimination to women under the civil law. “We must first look at the civil law.”

With regard to issues that may have arisen when distributing land after the tsunami, Mr. Boralessa said that they held workshops with Divisional Secretaries in those areas and advised them to issue the land permit in the wife’s name if a report from the Department of Probation and Child Care indicated problems of harassment of the wife by the husband.

Away with the “head of the household” Another bone of contention that CEDAW has dealt with is the “head of the household” concept, urging Sri Lanka to abolish it. This is the second issue that COHRE has taken up, pointing out that though the gruha mulikaya concept is gender neutral, in administrative practice it has led to the discrimination of women.

COHRE’s shadow report points out that the only existing definition for the head of the household seems to be that of the Department of Census and Statistics which states, “the person who usually resides in the household and is acknowledged by the other members as the head”.

It states: “According to historians, the origin of the concept of the head of the household is connected with land ownership...The usage of the concept by the colonizers was an unfortunate consequence… the continued use of the concept seems to have granted it social recognition and facilitated its entry to formal, legal and administrative structures of the state.”

Ms. Gomez argues that this concept has resulted in discrimination against women and cites the example of the tsunami and the allocation of state land to those who lost their land. “When the state allocated new land to those who had lost land (in the tsunami) it gave it to the person who had signed the relevant form as head…A study of 100 cases conducted by COHRE reveals that 85 percent of

women state that new property was given in the name of the spouse even though property was in their names prior to the tsunami,” the shadow report states.

The Sunday Times last year sat in on a session held

by COHRE for estate women in Bogawantalawa to get their views on the head of the household concept. There were jokes and laughter. There was also healthy debate and serious discussion.

“I am the one who goes for the meetings when my children’s school summons us. I go for work. My husband stays in the town and doesn’t know anything that’s happening. I am the head of my family.

I can do anything that he does,” says S. Yogaluxmi, the most talkative in the group.

The others nod their heads in vigorous agreement, and quietly murmur that whenever a form comes from the government it is the husband who signs it. Sometimes, even though the husband doesn’t work, he signs the documents and if I question he comes drunk and assaults me, another woman tells the Sunday Times.

To the crucial question: Who is the head of the family, the answer is prompt. It should be the person who works. If both husband and wife work the logic is simple. Then it should be both the husband and the wife. But what is the ground reality?

Invariably, the women say, they will either give the name of their husband or son, for that is the way things have been happening.

Whatever the men do, we can too, says another woman, adding however that most women don’t go for meetings because they are in the evening and they can’t come back alone at night. “That’s why the men go for meetings and not the women.

That is the reason why men get all the benefits offered by the government and not the women,” she says.

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.11

Issue No.16 - May 2011

COHRE conducts housing rights trainings Workshops for Grama Niladharis in Matara District and women in communities in the North-Central Province featured high on COHRE’s housing rights training agenda early this year.

Training conducted for Grama Niladharis of the Matara District on housing and land rights COHRE, in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Administration, conducted a training workshop on 19 February 2011 for Grama Niladharis within the Matara District. The 44 participants were selected by the District Secretary of Matara.

shop included an overview of the daily responsibilities and duties of the Grama Niladharis, the law relating to state land, registration of ownership titles, and housing rights. A presentation of each of the topics was followed by an activity that enabled the participants to put their newly found knowledge/information into practice. COHRE also evaluated how well the participants grasped the concepts of the training.

The main objective of the workshop was to raise awareness on the legal concepts and principle framework pertaining to housing rights, state land and human and fundamental rights. In addition, COHRE imparted much-needed knowledge by illuminating relevant legal concepts so that they may function with ease and have the ability to cope effectively with issues relating to housing rights that may arise in their day-to-day activities, especially when dealing with grassroots communities.

Members of the resource panel gave presentations at the training and included: Mr. Anura Piyabandu, Senior Assistant Secretary-Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs; Mrs. P.D.I.L Wijeygunawardena, Land Commissioner; Mr.W.M.S Warnakulasuriya, Assistant Commissioner of Training, Department of Land Settlement; Mr. Jagath Liyanarachchi, Attorney at Law; and Mr. Lankanath Rathnayaka, Attorney at Law.

The topics covered at the training work-

By the end of the training workshop, CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.12

Issue No.16 - May 2011

the participants had received a more in-depth knowledge regarding the legal concepts and principle framework of housing, land, fundamental and human rights, thereby assisting them in performing their functions as a Grama Niladhari more effectively.

Workshops on Housing, Land and Property (HLP) restitution Training workshops for government officials were conducted in Jaffna, Vavuniya and Trincomalee Districts in 2011, to facilitate the processes of HLP restitution that are currently being implemented.

These workshops are components of an on-going series of workshops that began in 2010. They are predominantly for Grama Niladhari officials operating in district-divisions that have been affected by conflict and are now seeing the return and restitution of displaced persons. Thus, the sessions of the workshops, while they included the discussion of generic topics that are relevant to housing, land and property, were also oriented to addressing the plight of post-conflict returnees and their integration into normal conditions of life.

Resource persons for the trainings comprised both COHRE officers and expert practitioners and academics.

Among them was Mr. K. Kurunathan, retired Deputy Land Commissioner of the North-East Province. All sessions were interactive and discussion-based and covered the following areas: the rights framework that is relevant to the implementation of housing, land and property laws in the post-conflict context; fundamental concepts that are relevant to land, such as ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’; land documentation and procedures applicable to state land; the right to adequate housing; and gender

and housing/land rights. The sessions and the workshops have so far received positive feedback and are being constantly improved to meet the needs of participating officials.

The training workshops are conducted on the premise that it is vitally important for local government officials operating in post-conflict settings to fully understand the implications of the various land laws, policies and practices that are prevalent in Sri Lanka. Local government officials, especially the Grama Niladharis, are the closest link to the beneficiaries, and need to be empowered as they represent the rights and needs of the beneficiary population.

All trainings have thus far been conducted in Tamil, the pre-dominant language of the selected areas in which the trainings have been conducted.

Workshops on women’s housing rights COHRE’s Women’s Housing Rights Initiative (WHRI) conducted three workshops in the North Central province in February 2011. The objective of these workshops was to raise awareness of the discriminatory impact of the head of household concept and the fact that joint ownership is an alternative form of ownership of state land grants.

Another equally important objective of the workshops was to gather feedback on both the head of the household concept and joint ownership from participants at the workshops. The Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa districts are significant in that most of the land in those areas has been given to families by the State, and those lands are used for agricultural purposes under the Mahaweli development project.

The three workshops were successful

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.13

Issue No.16 - May 2011

in terms of identifying the problems related to state land distribution, with a special focus on women. One workshop was conducted in the Anuradhapura town and were attended by government officials such as Divisional Secretaries and women development officers from the Anuradhapura district, in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Administration. The other two workshops were attended by women leaders from grassroots communities.

One workshop for community-based women was conducted in Hurigaswewa, a rural village in Anuradhapura, with

the local co-ordination of Rajarata Gamishakthi Nirmana Kavaya (RGNK), and the other in Manampitiya, in conjunction with Jatheen Athara Sahyogitha Sanwardena Samithiya (JASSS) in Pollonnaruwa. A street drama on women’s property rights was performed after the conclusion of the workshop for women both in Hurigaswewa and Manampitiya.

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.14

Issue No.16 - May 2011

Women’s housing, land and property rights in Sri Lanka In January this year, COHRE delivered a statement to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women during its 48th session, when it considered the Sri Lankan government’s record on women’s rights.

Madame Chairperson and Members of the Committee, The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) welcomes this opportunity to raise violations of women’s housing, land and property rights in Sri Lanka, where we have an office based in Colombo.

Sri Lanka has one of the largest populations of displaced people in the world.

The UNHCR estimates that there are over 200,000 internally displaced people in Sri Lanka today, displaced by war or natural disaster; and within this context women have faced routine discrimination vis-à-vis housing, land and property. Displaced women have endured discrimination related to titling schemes, restitution, and other elements related to emergency/disaster relief. Such discrimination is in violation of CEDAW articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 15 and 16.

In our shadow report to the Committee, COHRE has highlighted how the application of the ‘head of the household ’ concept has resulted in discrimination against women. This was particularly

seen in the aftermath of the tsunami, when women were disentitled to property as a consequence of the “head of the household” (seen as being synonymous with being male) being solely authorized to sign official documentation.

The acceptance of the concept of head of the household in administrative procedures relegates the status of women to a secondary position.

The Committee should urge the State Party to abolish the usage of “head of the household” terminology from government forms, since it is contrary to General Recommendation 21 of the Committee, and instead use terminology that is non-discriminatory.

Secondly, while the State has been giving land to the landless peasantry for many years, as a practice, it has only given these lands in single ownership.

Most often, it is the male that is given the property as he applies for the land and he is also considered the “head of the household.” Again , this is a process that systematically excludes women.

To remedy the situation, the State Party must ensure that joint or co-ownership of land is given to both spouses that apply or others who apply jointly for land

CENTRE ON HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS P.15

Issue No.16 - April 2011

grants and land permits, taking into consideration

Best Practiceofexample from Sri Lanka the principles equality and non-discrimination

in the Constitution. The State Party should be enSit ute ver suscip er incillan velit ut augiat alisism oloborp to couraged to amend the State Lands Ordinance erosto dolobore exer ad eu faci tat.or Am, iuremshall nim expressly provide that joint coquiscipisl ownership ipsustrud tat lutpat. be granted when the State allocates land to marEndrem doluptat, nulputpat. nulla acidunt ried couples orconsequat. to othersImwho applyUt jointly. ero eugiam, vel et nonse euisim volorperos eliquisi. Olortio od euiurge blandre veriuretoting endiametum er ad tat.

We theerciduisit Committee raise these violations during its review of Sri Lanka, and to recommend to the State Party that it adopts and effectively implements concrete policy measures aimed at ensuring that women in Sri Lanka are able to enjoy their housing, land and property rights.

Thank you.

Photos Cover / Street theatre regarding women’s rights in Sri Lanka © COHRE. P 3 / Women meeting in preparation for UN review of women’s rights in Sri Lanka © COHRE 2010. P 8 / Home destroyed by tsunami in Sri Lanka © COHRE. P 15/ Sri Lankan women attend UN CEDAW meeting in Geneva, January 2011 © COHRE.

COHRE

COHRE Sri Lanka

83, rue de Montbrillant

9/12, Cambridge Place,

1202 Geneva

Colombo 7, Sri Lanka

Switzerland

Tel/fax: +94 11 269 9559

Email: cohre@cohre.org

Email: cohresrilanka@cohre.org

www.cohre.org

www.cohre.org

COHRE extends its sincere thanks to all those who assisted in the production, editing and design of this newsletter. Especially, we thank those who helped with their articles and analysis. Without this valuable material, the newsletter could not exist.