Today IN YOUR OPINION we focus on the HUMAN ELEPHANT CONFLICT - “The annual economic value of a wild elephant for tourism : Rs 5,270,762 (USD  31,944 ) in 2018 -  the best ever year for Sri Lanka Tourism”.  Based on a study done by Srilal Miththapala. Sri Lanka is at it again – with elephants and monkeys seeming to be the government’s  particular area of focus , ignoring the fact that both these species contribute tremendously to the economy via wildlife tourism. Wanton destruction of wildlife, increase in deforestation, political interference resulting in land encroachment, and a deaf ear being turned to the pleas of activists and specialists, seem to be the order of the day.  

Nature and wildlife tourism has the most potential to drive Sri Lanka as a hot destination for high value travelers, a factor repeated governments have chosen to ignore.  Infact in 2024 approximately 400 elephants died / were killed .  Due to pressure from the government, the Department of Wildlife Conservation – who should know better and resisted governmental pressure [ DWC ], has commenced large scale elephant drives yet again, with the intention of  driving approximately 150 elephants from an area of high Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC)- the Kurunegala and Anuradhapura Districts, to the Wilpattu National Park. Currently, some of these elephants have taken refuge in the National Livestock Development Board farm at Oyamaduwa and others have gone into locations that didn’t have elephants, with no ready sources of food, resulting in them starving and enduring great stress, thus serving to increase HEC in these areas.

Unless elephant drives are completely halted, the conflict will continue until we are bereft of elephants in the wild. Elephants and other wildlife are one of the major attractions for foreign visitors and a major source of revenue for the country and local communities. A cut tree, a dead elephant, is a lost tourism dollar, something our governments fail to comprehend in their zeal to garner
votes. In this article, Anusha David features reputed experts whose knowledge and
advice, the government would do well to heed and act upon. 

Prithiviraj Fernando, Chairman Centre for Conservation and Research. Dr Fernando did his PhD on Asian elephant genetics, ecology and conservation, at the University of Oregon USA. He has conducted scientific research on elephants for over 30 years and published extensively on the subject. 

RESPONSE
 
Elephant drives are conducted by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) to remove
elephants from a human-elephant conflict (HEC) areas and relocate them to ‘protected’ areas.
Thus, eliminating elephants, hence HEC from the drive-areas.
 
Using GPS collars, the Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR) together with the DWC has
monitored elephants subjected to drives. CCR has also conducted post-drive HEC assessments in
drive-areas. The results have been widely shared, and show that drives are extremely detrimental
to both elephant conservation and HEC mitigation.
 
The findings show that adult males causing HEC are not removed by drives. If any elephants are
removed, they are the non-problem-causing elephants, mostly consisting of herds of females and
their young. Herds driven into parks and imprisoned there by electric fences, starve to death. In
addition, due to exceeding the parks’ carrying capacity, herds that always lived inside the parks,
also die of starvation. Therefore, drives turn ‘sanctuaries’ and ‘protected areas’ into ‘killing
fields’.
 
Although conducted for decades, no drive has eliminated elephants from an area and HEC is still
rampant in all drive-areas. Elephants are driven by confronting and harassing them, hence
subjecting/ them to intense and prolonged violence. Therefore, elephants subjected to drives but
remaining in the drive area, will perceive any person they encounter as a threat and react with
aggression. Drives also make elephants refractory to chasing, making it difficult to scare away
crop raiders. Consequently, drives increase HEC instead of solving it.

Drives fail not due to incompetence, inefficiency or want of courage of those conducting them,
or from lack of planning, but because they ignore biological realities of carrying capacity,
elephant behaviour and ecology. There can never be a ‘scientific drive’ – drives are the antithesis
of science.
 
Prior to the current drive, a female was collared in the drive area, by the Mahaweli Water
Security Investment Project elephant-collaring program. The Minister of Environment Dr.
Patabendi, made a decision to scientifically monitor the current drive, and the program collared
another three males and three females from different herds in the drive-area last week. Therefore,
monitoring will show whether any of these herds or males are in fact driven into the park and – if
they are – whether they will remain there and what happens to them. Also, CCR will do a post-
drive HEC assessment.
 
We are hopeful that the Hon. Minister will review the findings from this and past scientific
monitoring, and once and for all decide whether elephant drives should be allowed in the future. 

Srilal Miththapala – Tourism Consultant Asian Development Bank & Past President Tourist Hotels Association 

RESPONSE 
Since there are several experts more knowledgeable on this subject who have been quoted, I will
reserve my comments about the importance of wild elephants to Sri Lanka tourism and the
economy.
 
Sri Lanka has one of the most unique selling propositions for wildlife as being the only place in
the world where both the largest mammal on earth, the elephant, and the largest animal that ever
lived on earth, the blue whale can be seen within a space of perhaps 5 to 6 hours. Having conceptualised this idea about a decade ago, I am happy to note that it is being used
frequently now to promote Sri Lankan wildlife.However much more needs to be done. In fact, I believe the wild elephant can be an icon for Sri Lanka Tourism.
 
Some years ago I thought that if the actual economic value of a wild elephants for Sri Lanka
Tourism could be computed, it would then draw importance to elephants and why they should be
protected. Using  2018 figures (which was the best year for Tourism in Sri Lanka on record ),  I computed the earnings from three sources - the jeep drivers, department of wildlife and the hotels in and around these national parks. My study was limited only to the wildlife parks of Minneriya, Kaudulla, Udawalawe and Yala. 

Of course I did have to make some assumptions but they were all based on careful study and
research and was always on the conservative side. The total number of elephants in each of these
parks was obtained from respective scientific studies done by renowned elephant researchers.The annual economic value of a wild elephant for tourism : Rs 5,270,762 (USD  31,944) in 2018 ( the best ever year for Sri Lanka Tourism ) - Based on a study done by Srilal Miththapala. 

Dr Sumith Pilapitiya - Former Director General of Wildlife and Elephant Researcher 

RESPONSE
Human elephant conflict (HEC) is one of the country’s biggest social, political, economic and conservation problems.  This is mainly because it is widespread, with HEC being reported from almost all of the dry zone.  HEC has been continuously escalating over the last few decades, mainly because there has been no systematic, science based approach to addressing the problem.  Every successive government has been trying ad hoc “quick fix” solutions to address this issue and every government has failed miserably in its attempts. This alone is adequate evidence that “quick fix” or instant solutions don’t work. Nevertheless, “quick fixes” have been tried over and over again by every government! As a conservationist, I was heartened to hear the NPP say that they would be different and base their decisions on the advice of experts, during the recent election campaigns. 
 
But regardless of pre-election campaign rhetoric, the NPP Government too appears to be going for tried, tested and failed “quick fixes”.  The botched elephant drive from Sravastipura to Wilpattu National Park is a case in point.  There is clear and irrefutable evidence of failed outcomes of elephant drives in Sri Lanka.  The National Action Plan for Human Elephant Conflict Mitigation states the following:  “Small and medium scale elephant drives are mostly conducted due to public and political pressure in the mistaken belief that they will resolve HEC. However, given that they actually increase conflict, their continuation is at cross-purposes with HEC mitigation as the process of driving elephants results in increasing aggression of the elephants.”  Although Sri Lanka has undertaken elephant drives for decades, there is no area where the elephants have not returned. 

According to a survey conducted by the Center for Conservation and Research (CCR), 3 months after the Walawe Left Bank Project elephant drive, which cost more than Rs. 60 million in the early 2000s, 71% of the community in the drive area stated that the problem was the same or worse after the drive. With 98% stating that the crop raiding elephants were back. The situation in the area is very much worse now. As is the case in Sri Lanka, none of the politicians or authorities who ordered this drive have been held accountable for wasting public funds.  It is sad that political authorities and even public officials don't learn from past mistakes and repeat the same tried, tested and failed mechanisms in the hope that under a new government it may work better. Not only did the political authorities order the Sravastipura to Wilpattu drive, which was destined for failure, they ordered the drive to be conducted during the Maha cultivation season. Unless the political authorities and/or the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) could ensure that the elephants that are driven, walk on roads and on ridges of paddy fields, existing crops get destroyed during the drives, as has happened now.  This is the reason that the local communities are preventing DWC from driving the elephants from the Oya Maduwa Farm where they are cornered now, to Wilpattu.  Anyone who has visited Wilpattu National Park would have realized that there are very few elephants in a major portion of the National Park, except for the Pomparripu or western area of the park.  The reason for this is because a majority of the Wilpattu National Park is under primary/secondary forest.  This habitat can support a very low density of elephants—studies have shown that the density of elephants in primary/secondary forest is around 0.2 elephants per square kilometer, while grasslands and scrub jungle supports a density of 3 elephants per square kilometer.  While this is
published data, successive governments, including the present government, have “ordered” drives into Wilpattu National Park. Exceeding the carrying capacity will result in starvation, not only of the elephants driven into Wilpattu, but also for resident elephants of Wilpattu National Park.  As this
government came into power promising accountability, I hope the people who ordered this drive will be held accountable for this fiasco and another waste of public funds, at a time we can ill-afford to waste funds.

The human elephant conflict has no immediate or “quick fix” solutions. The sooner the authorities realize it the better.  On the direction of President Gotabhaya Rajapakse, a Presidential Committee to Prepare a National Action Plan for Human Elephant Conflict Mitigation was appointed by the Secretary to the President on the 22nd of July 2020. The committee comprised government agencies involved in conservation as well as those agencies whose development activities create the conditions for HEC, and elephant researchers. The committee conducted a review of all human-elephant conflict mitigation methods. Activities to be adopted for the National Action

Plan were selected based on their proven effectiveness, ability to be implemented at an appropriate geographic and time scale, and cost effectiveness. Stakeholder consultations were conducted with the public and relevant agencies and expressed views incorporated in the Action Plan as
appropriate.
 
President Ranil Wickremasinghe appointed a Presidential Committee to facilitate and oversee the implementation of the National Action Plan for HEC Mitigation in October 2022. Implementation of the National Action Plan was commenced by the various implementing agencies in 2023 and continued in 2024—albeit with limited funding.  During this period HEC mitigation activities were conducted by DWC and the Department of Agrarian Development.  While it is very difficult to attribute cause and effect directly when it comes to HEC mitigation, for the first time in almost a decade, the elephant and human deaths in 2024 are less than in 2023. 
 
Therefore, I call upon this government to continue implementation of the National Action Plan in full, without trying ad hoc quick fixes, particularly those based on myths and beliefs. HEC mitigation should be based on science, as the National Action Plan clearly shows. 

Sunela Jayewardene – Author, environmental conservationist and activist, founder and first
Chairperson of the Federation of Environmental Organizations (FEOSL) and an Advisor to the Govt of Sri Lanka, is recognized as “Sri Lanka’s leading environmental architect” (Time, March 2007; India Today, 2008). Her award-winning projects include, Jetwing Vil Uyana, Colombo Court, Rainforest Ecolodge, Jetwing Kaduruketha, Camellia Hills and several private homes in Sri Lanka and India

RESPONSE
 
Ultimately, poorly planned land-use is the root of Sri Lanka's escalating Human Elephant Conflict. From a deep-rooted tradition of sustainable land-use, which was directed by ecological boundaries and seasonal cultivation, we have devolved into a draftsman’s grid of plots and year-round cultivation. The traditional practice for Dry Zone farming communities was to live in cluster villages, designed to allow multiple family homes to be clustered around a community courtyard with centralised post-harvest storage, in vi bissa, within it. Cultivation fields were a satellite of the cluster village. These human settlements were demarcated from forests by ecological boundaries such as rivers and mountain ridges, which animals understand. This system, which evolved over centuries, had provided communal protection for human settlements and their precious harvests and given a clear message of boundaries to wildlife, but it collapsed with colonisation. 
 
Today, land continues to be dispersed according to this colonial system and individual homes with
post-harvest storage amidst cultivation, has become the dangerous norm. Seven decades after regaining independence, state officials still fail to recognize the value of  traditional land-use systems that had factored in the threat of elephants by building community protections. While it is difficult to immediately reverse the value system of a stand-alone private home, perhaps at least, community post-harvest storage facilities could be offered to farmers. Rice banks with individual ‘vaults’ situated in towns, would take the harvest out of the family dwelling and mitigate its vulnerability. 
 
Further, if farmers bordering Protected Areas were weaned away from year-round, yield-driven mono-cropping, and encouraged to generate alternate revenue from Nature- based tourism, dependency on rice farming would reduce. Then the flimsy watch huts, where the lone farmer spends his nights in fear, would seasonally accommodate tourists to watch elephants in fallow fields. This would help elephants, using their high intelligence, to understand a clear pattern of land use, thus mitigating the HEC. However, there is no quick fix and driving elephants across-country on political whim, against expert advice, will only exacerbate the problem.