Image: This is already a risky profession without political threats and interference
Supun Lahiru Prakash.
With the appointment of the new government, which holds a significant majority, many hoped its environmental promises would swiftly become a reality. Environmental activists, working at both local and international levels, voluntarily extended support to guide the government toward a sustainable future—where natural resources and biodiversity are safeguarded.
Yet, after nine months, optimism has given way to concern. Instead of progress, we see continuous threats to Sri Lanka’s environmental protection framework and to the safety of frontline wildlife officers.
On December 5, 2024, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Lands, and Irrigation K. D. Lalkantha declared in Parliament that farmers were “free to take any action” against crop-raiding wild animals on their lands. Such rhetoric not only sows doubt about the government’s conservation agenda but also legitimises extrajudicial actions and fuels hostility toward wildlife.
This was not an isolated incident. On June 13, at the Kurunegala District Coordination Committee Meeting, Deputy Minister of Agriculture Namal Karunaratne levelled false allegations against Wildlife Ranger and Attorney-at-Law Chathura Gunarathne, who had attempted to protect the Kahalla-Pallekele Sanctuary for elephants, and ordered take immediate steps to transfer him.
This move has placed his safety at risk, forcing him to seek relocation for fear of life-threatening consequences. At a media conference on August 24 in Kurunegala, the same deputy minister arguably claimed that wildlife officers shoot elephants with live bullets—suggesting this explained the bumps on elephant bodies. The most striking irony is that, despite repeated calls by experts and environmentalists for a coordinated, evidence-based, and scientific response, the government remains entrenched in failed strategies such as elephant drives and confining elephants to protected areas. At the same time, politicians within the very same government deflect responsibility by pointing fingers at wildlife officers, even going so far as to accuse them of shooting elephants.
Promoting mob law
This irresponsibility continues: on August 4, 2025, Deputy Minister of Fisheries, Aquatic and Marine Resources, Rathna Gamage publicly threatened that the “naughty boys” of the Department of Wildlife Conservation should be punished if they interfere with inland fishing activities — going so far as to suggest that such punishment could take the form of a “tree-bound assault.” Such remarks undermine the authority of a legally mandated institution and dangerously encourage violence against conservation officers.
When such words come from leading politicians, the consequences are severe. They discredit and demoralise frontline officers already working under dangerous conditions, embolden encroachment, poaching, and violence in protected areas, weaken public trust in the government’s commitment to environmental stewardship, and place Sri Lanka in violation of its national and international commitments to biodiversity conservation.
These threats unfold against intensifying ecological pressures. The Sustainable Sri Lanka 2030 Vision and Strategic Path report, published in 2019, projected that “while the cultivated extent of paddy is expected to remain constant at 1,100,000 ha over the period concerned, other crop extents are expected to increase by 60 percent from 367,000 ha to 590,000 ha. Accordingly, the total cultivated extent of crops will increase by 15 percent from 1,467,000 ha to 1,690,000 ha. It is not clear where this extra 223,000 ha of land will come from. There will be serious environmental concerns if this is to be obtained via deforestation or by clearing other sensitive ecosystems.”
Threat to biodiversity
Furthermore, according to the World Bank, 45.5% of Sri Lanka’s land area was already under agriculture as of 2022. In this context, any further expansion of agriculture at the expense of natural ecosystems would devastate biodiversity and undermine the long-term security of future generations. Despite these risks, a letter dated July 31, 2025, and signed by Minister K.D. Lalkantha instructed the release of 600 acres of land to a private company near the Wilpattu National Park. Furthermore, on August 29, 2025, the Director General of the Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, H.M.J.K. Herath, announced to the media that 5,300 hectares of land in the Mahaweli zones had already been allocated for investment.
Equally troubling is the government’s willingness to release protected lands gazetted during the war. On July 16, 2025, Minister of Environment Dr. Dammika Patabendi announced at a Special District Coordination Committee meeting in Batticaloa that areas gazetted as protected after 1985 would be released to the public. In our 2020 publication, where we reported that Sri Lanka recorded the highest annual elephant mortalities and the second-highest human fatalities globally due to the Human–Elephant Conflict, we highlighted that the North, North-Central, and Eastern provinces, which were heavily affected by three decades of armed conflict, had many abandoned villages and cultivations that subsequently became optimal elephant habitats. Following the cessation of hostilities in 2009, the resettlement of people and the expansion of human activities into these areas have likely contributed to the rapid escalation of the conflict. Recent initiatives to release protected areas in the aforementioned provinces for general use by the public are expected to further exacerbate the situation.
When we published the above study covering the period 2010–2019, the annual average number of elephant deaths in Sri Lanka stood at 263. However, in the past five years, this figure has risen sharply to 403 per year. These developments raise grave concerns for the future of Sri Lanka, not only in terms of wildlife conservation but also human well-being. At a time when the Human–Elephant Conflict (HEC) is at unprecedented levels—with elephants now ranging across 60% of the island and humans sharing70% of it—the dismantling of protected areas is likely to intensify the crisis. Such actions would not only further endanger wildlife, but also undermine the sustainability of local agricultural communities, weaken nature-based tourism, and pose long-term risks to the national economy.
Our conservation legacy has been built through the dedication and sacrifice of countless individuals, including wildlife officers who have given their lives in the line of duty, and must not be eroded by reckless rhetoric or policy backtracking. What is urgently needed now is leadership that upholds the rule of law, protects those who enforce it, and strengthens—not weakens—our environmental institutions. The Government must reaffirm its commitment to wildlife protection and the safety of conservation staff, strictly enforce the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, and send a clear public message discouraging vigilante action while reaffirming the authority of wildlife officers. At the same time, land and agricultural policy must be grounded in science, focusing on sustainable intensification rather than destructive expansion into protected areas. The choice before us is stark: either safeguard our frontline defenders and natural heritage, or pave the way for lawlessness, ecological collapse, and a future stripped of its wildlife.