Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Changing Conservaon Scene
Sarath Wimalabandara Kotagama
Professor of Environment Science, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo
ABSTRACT
Thescienceandpracceofconservaonofwildlife/biodiversity
haschanged drascallyovertheyearsin the internaonalarenadueto
evolvingsocial standards, scienc understanding ofplantsandanimals,
ecology, and the impacts of human development. In Sri Lanka, these
changes have not taken root as yet, and thus the implementaon of
conservaonhasbeenweak.
Thisarclereviewsthepastandpresentstatusofglobalchangesto
conservaonastheyaectthecountry,andoutlinesafuturepathwayto
achievingsustainablebiodiversityconservaon.Humanlifestylechanged
fromhunter-gatherertothepresentviaaninialagricultural-lifestyle.The
changesresultedinmajorlandscapeandresourceexploitaon,ulmately
impacngthe natural resourcesoftheworld.In this scenario,thedesire
to conserve biological diversity emerged through atudinal changes,
for example, from “Game” to “Wildlife” to “Biodiversity”. Resoluons
for the conservaon of biodiversity require an in-depth analysis of the
environment,followedbyaclearrecognionofthistransionfromGame
toBiodiversity.
The global interest in conserving biodiversity has been strengthened
bytheConvenononBiologicalDiversity.HistoricalchangesinSriLankan
legislaonreectthevariousstagesofresourceexploitaonandresponse
to changes in global biodiversity.The new policy, while recognizing the
“sustainable use” of natural resources, falls short of enabling this to
happen.Thefuturedireconsofconservaonremain,therefore,adesire,
but possible through the recognionof weakness in exisng legislature
andatudes,andtheirsubsequentreccaon.
KEYWORDS:
Lifestyle,Environment,Game,Wildlife,BiologicalDiversity,Biodiversity,
Conservaon,Legislaon.
SuggestedCitaon:Kotagama,S.W.(2021).TheChangingConservaonScene.University of Colombo Review
(NewSeriesIII),2(2),05-31.
©2021 TheAuthors.Thisworkis licenced under aCreaveCommonsAribuon4.0 Internaonal Licence
which permits unrestricted use, distribuon, and reproduconin any medium, provided the originalwork is
properlycited.
sarathkotagama@gmail.com
UniversityofColomboReview(SeriesIII),
Vol.2,No.2,2021
Universityof Colombo Review (Series III),Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
WISDOM ENLIGHTENS
Cover Design : Dilmi Samaraweera
COLOMBO
UNIVERSITY PRESS
ISSN 2756-9152
(SERIES III) VOL. 2, NO. 2, 2021
UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBO
DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/ucr.v2i2.45
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
6
Introducon
The science and practice of conservation of wildlife / biodiversity has changed
drastically over the years in the international arena due to evolving social standards, scientic
understanding of plants and animals, ecology, and the impacts of human development.
In Sri Lanka, these changes have not taken root as yet, and thus it appears that wildlife/
biodiversity conservation is being implemented like a boat at sea without a radar and sail.
This article reviews the past and present status of global changes as they affect the country
and seeks to outline a future pathway to achieve sustainable biodiversity conservation.
Background
The impact of humans on the natural environment can be traced to the onset of
human evolution itself. As man evolved out of apes through the various hominid forms to
become Homo sapiens, he was already progressing towards altering the environment or his
surroundings. The change came primarily from his search for food, while taking shelter in
natural caves or below ledges. He was thus able to escape the elements of nature – rain,
high temperature, wind etc. The lifestyle referred to as “hunter-gather” required a very in-
depth understanding of the surroundings to enable the hunt and the gathering. The males
performed the hunt while the females did the gathering. This life was full of uncertainties
and thus insecure. In light of this situation, − even though he possessed the means for
change, and a developed brain – man apparently remained a hunter-gatherer for 98% of the
span of human existence on earth. The uncertainty prevented any future investments.
Hunter - Gatherer
Agricultural pracce
SECURITY
and
CERTAINITY
Present society
INSECURITY,
and
UNCERTAINNITY
OF THE FUTURE
?
Figure 1
Historic Transformation of Society
Around 12,000-15,000 years ago, we are told, that man took the most remarkable
step of manipulating his surrounding to engage in what we refer today as agriculture.
This brought into life certainty and security, two of the most vital elements that enable
investments for the future: creativity and innovations. Now, his lifestyle was set to make
7
S.W.Kotagama
him the master of the system. His insecure and uncertain attitudes began to change. The
manipulation and harnessing of nature became the main feature of human existence. Soon,
man considered himself the ruler of nature. Nature was to be utilized for his benet and
manipulation. Man’s abode was soon relocated from caves under rock ledges to at lands
close to elds. Human lifestyles rapidly changed: detached from the cave, man could now
nd himself shelter and safety in any place by building what was needed for that purpose.
A new dimension was added to the environment – a built/structured environment. Soon this
built/structured environment became the major location of all activities – settlements for
living and elds for obtaining food.
This manipulative lifestyle is the main factor responsible for changing nature. While
some natural areas were lost to the settlement and eld. Ultimately the ideas of extinctions,
threatened status and need for protection started to become necessary. The change in
lifestyle also brought a third dimension to the present environment – theories that condition
the human to be what he is. Based on education/learning, cultural ways and – since 1876 –
economics have fundamentally made us what we are today. We do not do anything today
without considering the economic factor. Thus, the three elements of our environment –
the natural, built/structured, and theoretical elements – play the role of molding human
lifestyles.
ENVIRONMENT
BUILTTHEORITICAL
NATURAL
Figure 2
Components of the Environment
Certainty and security, along with the changing lifestyle, resulted in the increase of
the human population. This triggered the need for more resources, cities, and technologies
for living, and today, we are back to being insecure and uncertain about the future as a
result of the impacts of this change. It must be noted that this insecurity and uncertainty
stems from our own action which has resulted in what is now recognized as environmental
problems. Among them are global climate change, loss of biological diversity and resulting
extinction of species, poisoning of the earth, i.e., pollution, and impacts on human health
through non-communicable health conditions to name a few. Even the present Covid-19,
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
8
one of the 300+ zoonotic diseases that we have been affected by in the last 70 years, could
be considered an impact of interference with nature.
In the area of nature conservation, we note very clearly that the last 100 years have
seen some dramatic changes in the understanding of wildlife and biological diversity, and
the approach to conserve them. Among them, notable changes may be observed in:
• the shift in the use of terminology (e.g., from “game” to “wildlife” to “biodiversity”)
• the resolution of the concepts of protection and conservation
• the recognition of sustainable use in biodiversity
• the emergence of the ecosystems approach in conservation
• the emergence of adaptive management in nature management
• the change from biological conservation to conservation biology
• the path towards regeneration and ecosystems restoration.
From “Game” to “Wildlife” to “Biodiversity”
Before Buddhism was embraced in Sri Lanka, it was most likely that hunting was
enjoyed by the people (at least among the elite). This is indicated when Arahat Mahinda
met King Devanampiyatissa while the latter was out hunting. After embracing Buddhism,
however, this attitude changed. It is difcult to nd incidents of hunting being carried out for
pleasure or even as an accepted livelihood in available literature. Instead, it was considered
a sinful act and hunters were negated as discards or lowly persons in society. They were not
even permitted into places of worship and to social functions etc. Wildlife protection came
under the patronage of the rulers, and through existing social norms, wildlife protection
remained part and parcel of the lifestyle of the people.
Traditional philosophies enjoined man to respect, or even revere nature, and work in
partnership with it. Forests were protected by Royal Edicts; tree felling and collecting of
forest products were controlled; and the delicate and fragile ecosystem of the wet zone
forest areas were left practically undisturbed. (Abeywickrama, 1986, p. 2)
Change in attitudes and land use practice commenced with the onset of the colonial
period (1505–1948). Thus, over-exploitation and hunting for pleasure began. It is evident
from the available literature that there was no doubt that Sri Lanka’s central highlands
and wet zone were forested prior to the European invasions of the country. The Dutch and
Portuguese were interested in various types of trade, among which was the exporting of
wild elephants (see Figure 3. Ferguson, 1901 as cited in Webb, 2002). When the British
took control of the country, their initial attitude was to exploit natural resources optimally.
S.W.Kotagama 9
Figure 3
Export of Elephants, 1863 - 1899
Note: Extracted from Ferguson (1901), as cited in Webb (2002).
These changes in attitudes towards animal p rotection and land-use which began with
the onset of the colonial period had a signicant inuence on the country’s legal system
as well. Modern day legislation enacted to protect wildlife in the island can be traced back
to the 1870s when the country was still under British colonial rule. This legislation was
initiated upon recognition of the impacts of large-scale land alienation in the highlands of
the country.
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
10
Development of land had to continue, of course, and wildlife had to, just as inevitably,
recede. The opening up of the highlands are well documented by Wickramagamage (2017).
The process of deforestation in the hill country began only about 15 years after the
conquest of the Kandyan Kingdom in 1815 by the British colonialists. But it did not take
off in a big way until about 1840 which marked the beginning of the rst wave of land
alienation. (Wickramagamage, 2017, p. 24)
This acceleration was primarily due to the coffee plantations that expanded rapidly
during the 1850s, 60s, and 70s, reaching a peak in 1878 (see Figure 4. from Webb, 2002).
Figure 4
Extent of sale of crown lands in Ceylon during the British rule between 1833 and 1926
The rate of forest clearing for coffee came to an abrupt end with the spread of the coffee
rust, Hemileia vastatrix, in 1868, but the extent of montane forest loss had its impact on the
biodiversity.
The multitude of impacts that accrued from the clearing of highland forests can be
classied as both direct and indirect. The direct impacts are the loss of biodiversity and
habitats. The indirect impacts are degradation of soil through erosion and retardation of soil
development, siltation of low-lying areas and riverbeds, and the increase in landslides and
oods. The words of George Gardner, the Superintendent of the Royal Botanical Gardens,
Peradeniya, succinctly describe the direct impacts of the clearing of forests for plantation
agriculture as early as 1843:
Of late large tracts of the country have been cleared of the virgin forests by which they
covered, from the rapid spread of cultivation; and as this is likely to go on to a great
extent there can be no doubt that many of those trees which are peculiar to the Island, and
local in the range, will long become extinct; and the Botanists of future times will look
in vain for many of those species which their predecessors had recorded in the annals of
science as natives of the Island. This is no idle speculation; such having already occurred
in other countries. (Gardner as cited in Webb, 2002)
The devastation caused to forest is quoted by Wickramagamage as cited in the
Encyclopedia of Ceylon (1902) as follows:
11
S.W.Kotagama
The summits of the highest ridges are clothed with verdure, and along their base, in the
beautiful valleys which intersect them in every direction, the slopes were still within
the last few years covered with forests of gigantic and valuable trees, which have now
disappeared under the axe of the planter, who has felled and burnt the timber on all the
nest slopes at an elevation of 2000 to 4500 feet, and converted the hillsides into highly-
cultivated coffee estates. (2017, p. 29)
The grave indirect effects of these practices are well documented by G. H. K.
Thwaites, Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Peradeniya, and many commission
reports on the subject. According to Bastianpillai (1968), Thwaites feared soil erosion,
decreased rainfall, and eventual land desiccation unless the planters’ activity was regulated.
The forests in the highlands nourished the soil and protected it from erosion for thousands
of years. Removal of this protective cover led to many onsite and offsite effects. The onsite
effect was soil erosion and loss of soil productivity rendering sloping lands unproductive
grasslands. Thwaites complained about the siltation of lowlands and riverbeds in the 1870s
at the height of the coffee industry. It is generally known that plantation land lost on average
about 20cm of its topsoil after the clearance of forests in the 19th Century. Thwaites
managed to convince Sir Joseph Hooker, Director, Kew Gardens, of the seriousness of
the situation in the colony. He cited examples of soil erosion in the uplands, and siltation
of low-lying farmlands and riverbeds. These ndings are corroborated by various Royal
Commission reports produced in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Hooker’s concern
prompted the Colonial Secretary to issue an administrative order banning the clearing of
government forest land above the 1524m (5000 foot) contour. Even though this ban did not
result in an immediate end to the clearing of forests in these areas, it had, at least, symbolic
value in inuencing the forestry policy of colonial rulers of the island. The Directors of
the Royal Botanical Gardens, Peradeniya, who were concerned about the loss of endemic
species from the highlands, in fact, attempted ex-situ conservation in botanical gardens in
order to preserve these species for future generations (Wickramagamage, 2017)
Evoluon of Wildlife Legislaon and Policy
In the meantime, with the newly acquired weapon, the gun, men preyed on large
animals in order to prove their superiority. Game hunting thereby emerged, targeting large
animals. Along with game hunting and the illegal killing of animals, a change also occurred
in attitudes towards these large animals. To mitigate this, an Ordinance to prevent wasteful
destruction of buffaloes and game was introduced. In 1889, Colonel F. C. H. Clarke, the
Acting Conservator of Forest, brought to the notice of the government the disastrous effects
of commercial exploitation of wildlife, and his report paved the way for the introduction
of an Ordinance to prevent wanton destruction of elephants, buffaloes, and other game in
1891. It provided for a closed season of ve months during which killing of deer, sambur,
buffalo, and peafowl was prohibited. Further, “game” was dened as sambur, spotted deer,
red deer, barking deer, buffalo, and peafowl. Simultaneously, a law was also introduced
for raising export duty on hides and horns. These legislations were introduced with the
primary objective of safeguarding the interest of colonial hunters. In parallel, several
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
12
more legislations were passed to mitigate the dried meat trade and to prohibit commercial
exploitation of wildlife.
The passing of these ordinances immediately excited the public’s interest, and two
rival camps emerged: those adversely affected and those in favor of the new restrictions.
The former immediately began a campaign against the restrictions while the latter formed
the Game Protection Society in 1884 and played a pivotal role in the passage of future laws.
The State continued to enact more protective legislations in the coming years.
For example, the Game Protection Act No 11 of 1902, the Fish (Dynamite) Act No
14 of 1905, Wild Bird Protection Act No 10 of 1906 and the Dried Meat Ordinance No 9 of
1908 (see Crusz, 1973, in Appendix A of this article) were passed to mitigate the commercial
exploitation of wildlife and the dried meat trade. Although these early Ordinances were
admittedly defective and sometimes inoperative, they could nonetheless be considered as
the beginnings of modern-day wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka.
The Forest Ordinance No.10 of 1885 (FO), (Crusz, 1973, in Appendix A) enacted
to regulate the uncontrolled destruction of forests was also the rst legislation utilized to
reserve areas for the protection of game animals. Two types of protected areas (PA) were
declared under Section 19 of the FO: game sanctuaries (GS) where shooting of wildlife
was strictly prohibited, and the Resident Sportsmen’s Reserve (RSR), where shooting game
animals was permitted under a license during the open season that usually lasted for about
ve months. The rst GS was created on 20th March 1900 at Yala, and two more game
sanctuaries were established in 1905 and were merged in 1909 to form the Wilpattu Game
Sanctuary. Steps were taken to demarcate and reserve “surrounds” to each of these two
sanctuaries as RSRs. These legal changes have been best summarized by Crusz (1973) (see
Appendix A for an extract from this publication).
As the trade in dried meat was almost entirely dependent on the number of deer
slaughtered at water holes during the closed season, an effort was made to put a stop to such
illegal practices by means of employing watchers. This experiment proved a failure as it
was soon discovered that most of these so-called watchers were subsidized by the poachers.
At this juncture the Game Protection Society opted to abandon the process of employing
watchers and decided to concentrate their staff in ve selected localities, three of which
abutted Yala.
Between 1909 and 1929, no outstanding difculties or great progress with respect
to conservation can be recorded. The period may best be described as one of consolidating
existing regulations. One of the outstanding features of this period was the action taken to
protect indigenous fauna which involved:
• putting a stop to all forms of commercial exploitation;
• prohibiting the practice of slaughtering animals over water holes;
• prosecuting persons who hunted with aid of electric torches at night; and
• concentrating on intensive protection of specied areas.
The years that followed showed a marked change in conditions. Communications
improved, more areas of the country were opened up, and cultivation expanded, reducing
the forest cover and thus curtailing the area available for occupation by wildlife.
13
S.W.Kotagama
The Game Protection Society is, today, the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society.
This change in moniker signals a clear shift from its original mission and has had much to
do with the attitudinal change from seeing animals as game to wildlife. The means to protect
game animals from illegal hunters and loss of habitat resulting from development was to set
aside lands for the animals. The lands or protected areas have thus become the backbone of
modern-day conservation. Accordingly, “wildlife” referred to large animals (game) within
protected areas. Animals outside the PA system were not considered as requiring protection
or conservation.
Legislaon on the Fauna and Flora of Ceylon
The end of the First World War resulted in importing shot guns in large numbers. By
the mid-1920s, it became clear that the existing law for protecting game animals needed to
be further amended. The government placed the administration of the forests and all that
they contained under the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Under the Ministry’s new
policy of re-allotment of crown land for specic uses, the important requirement of allotting
specied areas for the intensive protection of the island’s fauna received consideration and
attention. One of the rst measures taken was to appoint a Select Committee in 1926 to
examine the fauna and ora. Sessional Paper XXXIII of 1930 was the outcome of the long
deliberation, which recommended the declaration of extra sanctuaries and the restriction of
gun licenses as well trade and export of animals and animal parts (Government of Ceylon,
1930; Nicholas, 1952). The Committee also proposed the introduction of an entirely new
Ordinance titled “An Ordinance for the Protection of Fauna and Flora of Ceylon”. The
term “game” was taken out from the title of this new Ordinance, as it provided wider
coverage, including the protection of ora, rather than emphasizing the preservation of wild
animals for the purpose of sport. The Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No 2 of 1937
(FFPO) came into force on 1st March 1938. It provided provisions for the establishment
of protected areas (PAs) where all fauna and ora within the specied areas would be
free from detrimental human interference, and for the listing of species that would enjoy
protection throughout the country.
Within the Sri Lankan context traditionally, wildlife meant the larger game animals,
such as elephants, bear, deer, leopard etc. The new Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance
of 1937 did not even have a denition for wildlife in the country. The denition for “fauna”
was derived from the classication of “wild animals" as "any animal which is not a domestic
animal". The denition for "domestic animal" was provided as "any head of cattle, or
any sheep, goat, horse, ass, mule, dog or cat; any domestic fowl or other bird commonly
reared by man as poultry; and when domesticated by man, any elephant, buffalo, pig, deer,
hare, rabbit, peacock, parrot, pigeon or other animal". This leads us to the denition of
an animal as "any vertebrate or invertebrate animal and includes a bird, sh or reptile".
This strange denition appears to indicate that sh, birds, and reptiles are not vertebrates,
while amphibians are not included (FFPO, 1937, Chapter 469, Section 11, Interpretation of
Part 1, pp. 8–9).
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
14
The denition of the ora component appeared as "plants" and was described as
"any member of the vegetable kingdom and includes the seed or any other part of any plant"
(FFPO No 2, 1937). Today this denition would be considered strange for two reasons:
rstly, because it refers to an undened concept of a “vegetable kingdom”; and secondly,
because the term “vegetable” refers only to those plants that are used for food by man, and
not to plants that are inedible.
Although these were not the most accurate denitions for wildlife, they surprisingly
remained unchallenged till 1989. The change to have a holistic, more scientically accepted
denition of wildlife was introduced through the proposed wildlife policy document in 1989
(Kotagama, 1989). In 1990, the Government of Sri Lanka adopted the rst comprehensive
wildlife policy, and in it the denition for wildlife was "plants and animals which owe their
existence to natural phenomenon or to processes that occur autonomously" (DWC, 1990).
Accordingly, this denition was incorporated into the 1994 amendment to the FFPO (No
49, 1993). The subsequent amendment in 2009 (FFPO No 22, 2009) continues to use the
above denition for wildlife. The denition thus includes all living organisms and in today's
context becomes synonymous with "biological diversity" or "biodiversity".
Establishment of the Department of Wildlife
In 1937, a new consolidated act, the Fauna and Flora Protection Act, was approved
along with numerous categories of PAs and protection to some plants and fauna. The
emphasis in this legislation was very clear as given in Section 1. “The ordinance may be
cited as the fauna and ora protection ordinance” (FFPO No 2, 1937). The administration of
the recognized PAs under the FFPO was under the Forest Department. Very soon it came to
be realized that the Forest Department’s role was questionable. This was because the Forest
Act enabled the harvesting and exploitation of the forest while the FFPO was to protect the
forest from any extractive exploitation. Soon this dilemma of a contradictory approach to
common forest resources resulted in a dialogue that ended with the establishment of two
separate Departments governed by the Forest Ordinance and the FFPO.
The 1949 Forest Department (FD) Administration report spells out the policy of the
new Wildlife Department as follows:
Since October 1949 a Wild Life Department has been formed by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands as it has become increasingly apparent that the perpetuation of
the indigenous fauna is essential to the country's welfare. Endowed by nature with a wild
fauna rich in variety, beauty and interest, it has become the duty of the present generation
to hand it down to posterity in as complete a form as possible. The new department's
function will be to implement this policy. (Forest Department Administration Report,
1949, section 89).
The new Department continued to be under the Conservator of Forests until 1st
October 1950, when Mr. C. W. Nicholas was appointed as the Wildlife Warden.
Subsequently, a Select Committee was appointed in 1957, to look into and recommend
directions to the wildlife sector. The deliberations were presented as Sessional Paper XIX
15
S.W.Kotagama
in the Report of the Committee on Preservation of Wildlife (Government of Ceylon, 1959).
This document had some very far-reaching recommendations that are valid even for today.
The futuristic thoughts presented there were not implemented possibly because the general
attitude was still preservationist. Let me quote some sections to illustrate this.
On Sinharaja, it noted that: “[t]he inaccessible upper area of this forest which are
unsuitable for forest exploitation should be declared a Strict Nature Reserve” (Government
of Ceylon, 1959, p. xi). On conservation of wildlife-related education and research, it noted:
The Education Department, in consultation with the Department of Wildlife, should
prepare and allocate suitable syllabuses in regard to the preservation of wildlife, to be
included in the Teacher’s Training Courses in the Training Colleges and the Schools.
Undergraduates of the Universities studying Botany and Zoology should be encouraged
to make excursions into our jungles and National Reserves with the advice and help of
the Department of Wildlife and study the subjects in a practical manner.
The Parks should be published in schools and Universities to encourage students to
undertake research.
The Department of Wildlife Conservation must devote more time to applied Biology and
establish a research unit to study the problems of all types of wildlife.
WLD Rangers and WLD Guards should be trained…
Special classes in Biology should be arranged…
Staff ofcers and the present Assistant Wardens should be sent for courses in Wildlife
Management…
It was only 29 years later that the recommendations presented in this paper would
begin to take partial form under the Wildlife Department. Today, the Department has a
fully-edged National Wildlife Training Facility although its performance is questionable.
Biological Diversity and New Legislaon to the Forefront
Changes to the conservation and protection of nature under the theme of
biodiversity came about in the 1980s. In 1981, the World Conservation Congress (IUCN)
General Assembly discussed the need to ensure the “sharing of benets arising out of the
exploitation of the Biological Diversity” (IUCN, 1983). This intervention ended with the
UN Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity. With this, the emphasis started
shifting from “protection” to “conservation” and included the involvement of people or
people participation.
The original term “biological diversity” was coined by Thomas Lovejoy. This was
shortened and the new word “biodiversity” was coined by W. G. Rosen in 1985 while
planning the 1986 National Forum on Biological Diversity, organized by the National
Academy of Sciences, USA (NFB, 1986). Through the actions of O. E. Wilson, a renowned
entomologist, the word “biodiversity” became popular, and the use of the term “wildlife”
slowly receded. However, the appearance of the word “biodiversity” in the scientic
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
16
literature came about only in 1998 (Kaennel, 1998). The word “biodiversity” set the stage
for a new chapter in the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of nature.
Biodiversity, an acronym for biological diversity, is thus referred to as a “pseudo
cognate” or a coined word. The meaning has never been directly dened but is interpreted
as per the denition of biological diversity given in Article 2 of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) that was approved in 1992 (CBD, 1993). The CBD recognizes
biodiversity at three levels – genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystems diversity.
The Convention was also heavily inuenced by the environmental movement of the time.
Stepping away from “protection” to “sustainable use”, the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Development provided its ideological nucleus. Soon ‘“biodiversity” became
the key word at all forums and “wildlife” was replaced.
“Biodiversity” differs from “wildlife” in that it refers to all organisms in all locations,
and sustainable utilization. It moves away from the total emphasis on protection and the
limitations on protected areas. The subjects broaden and the efforts become very involved
and confusing. The efforts lean towards conservation rather than protection. This requires
some change to legislation built around the concept of protection.
In 1990, Sri Lanka saw the inclusion of these philosophical changes into the wildlife
sector through the government approved “Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1990” (DWC,
1992). The policy contained very forward-looking aspects (see Appendix B). It would not
be wrong to state that there was considerable opposition, and non-acceptance of the content
of the Policy by the wildlife enthusiast of the time. Even today, many are yet to comprehend
these changes. These changes came about even before the approval of the CBD in 1992.
This was because insight on the CBD document was available to the author (Kotagama
1989), and the Policy would have enabled Sri Lanka to become a pioneer in biodiversity
conservation. Sadly however, it remained a document with little implementation, primarily
because of the difference in wildlife protection and biodiversity conservation.
The Sri Lanka Wildlife legislation of 1970 was amended in 1993 with consideration
to the aforementioned policy. This amendment brought in some ideas of sustainable use,
and new principles of conservation, but they were far from meeting the CBD objectives.
For instance, the preamble of this legislation stated that it was:
[a]n ordinance to provide for the protection, conservation and preservation of the fauna
and ora of Sri Lanka; for the prevention of the commercial exploitation of such fauna
and ora; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto (FFPO,
1993, Preamble),
which was clearly not in line with the CBD objectives which are as follows:
• Objective 1 – the conservation of the biological diversity;
• Objective 2 – sustainable use of its components; and
• Objective 3 – the fair and equitable sharing of the benets arising out of the
utilization of genetic resources. (CBD, 1993, Article 1)
17
S.W.Kotagama
The Sri Lankan legislation on wildlife does recognize some of the different uses of
ora and fauna even though it does not dene commercial purpose. It recognizes protection,
conservation, and preservation as three different activities that meet one objective. Despite
this, the absence of recognition of “biodiversity” by the conservation fraternity of the time
meant that progress was slow.
In 2000, the National Wildlife Policy for Sri Lanka of 1990 was revised (see
Appendix C), incorporating further ideas of sustainable use, and people participation etc.
Even though it did not come close to the ideas presented in the CBD, the global focus
on conservation and biodiversity was emphasized. This was a commendable step. Some
efforts to incorporate the ideals of conservation were affected with the outreach programs
and the reluctant acceptance of ecotourism in a limited way by the Wildlife Conservation
Department. Keeping in line with this new revision of the Wildlife Policy, the FFPO was
amended in 2009 (No. 22, 2009).
In the meantime, the establishment of the Biodiversity Secretariat in the Ministry of
Environment as well as the development of the Biodiversity Action Plan for the country
took place in 1994. The establishment of the Biodiversity Secretariat brings a third element
of state machinery onto the conservation stage (Wildlife and Forestry being the other two).
Its role is to be the focal point for the CBD and co-ordinate activities related to biodiversity
in the country.
As time passed, the signicance of biodiversity became dominant and prominent.
The Forest Department changed its name to become the Department of Forest Conservation.
Its activities duplicated the role of the Wildlife Department. Even more interestingly, the
Department of Forest Conservation rode the waves of biodiversity so well that the wet
zone and hill country forest assets became more important than the traditional PAs that
are mostly in the Dry Zone and under the purview of the Wildlife Department. The Forest
Ordinance was amended to incorporate “Conservation Forests” in the revised Forest Act of
2009 (Forest Act No. 65, 2009). These Conservation Forests were similar to that of the Strict
Nature Reserves (SNRs) in the FFPO. These Conservation Forests that are around 40+ in
number are, in terms of biodiversity, much richer than the reserve network of wildlife, as
many are in the wet and montane zones of Sri Lanka.
In 1936, it was recommended that the Sinharaja Forest Reserve, declared as such
in 1876, should be declared as an SNR, but this was not carried out due to the value of
timber. However, when it was proposed that the remaining Sinharaja Forest Reserve be
logged for plywood in 1969, public outcry resulted in the abandonment of this project and
the saving of the forest reserve. This was followed by intense faunal and oral research by
the University of Peradeniya and a march for conservation carried out by the University of
Colombo which resulted in the Sinharaja Forest (of what was left) being protected under a
new legislation – the Wilderness Heritage Act (1989) – and subsequently receiving World
Heritage status (Sinharaja Forest Reserve, 1988). This Act was put together to ensure that
the “crown of the forest” in terms of biodiversity remained with the forest sector despite
the practical aspect of “non-exploitatory protection” provided by the Wildlife sector at the
time. Starting from here and followed by the National Conservation Review in 1990 which
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
18
involved the survey of all forests over 200ha for its biodiversity, the Forest Department’s
stakes in biodiversity increased. Today with eco-tourism, education centers and even
“elephant watching” promoted by the Forest Department, its role is a clear duplication of
the mandate of the Wildlife Department.
Biodiversity, while uniting divided natural resources (forest and related fauna) and
bringing institutes functionally closer, has also opened avenues to other traditional and
indigenous knowledge-based disciplines. Among these are Ayurveda, the use of medicinal
plants, and multiple uses of biological material in trade etc. The aspect of “use” which was
one of the thorns in wildlife protection has become a major area of attention in biodiversity
conservation. It therefore cannot be neglected. It also opens up the areas to economic
reasoning – an aspect that was shunned by traditional wildlife conservationists. It is these
fundamental changes that make protection a more closed paradigm and conservation an
open, more socially acceptable one. As such, biodiversity has become a concern for all
persons despite their interest in the value of nature and its protection. The United Nations
theme for 2010, “Biodiversity is our life” aptly recognized this. In passing it may be said
that Sri Lanka attempted to introduce this idea for wildlife in 1990 when the Department
of Wildlife proposed the theme “To Promote the Acceptance of Wildlife” and the general
public adopted the theme “Wildlife is our Life”. For those who have followed wildlife
interests in the country, the consequent arousal of the general public, especially in the Sinhala
vernacular, is evidence of this move. In Sinhala, we changed “jki;aj” (wanasathwa)
to “jkÔù” (wanajeewi) and the theme to “Wanajeevin ape jeevayayi” (Wildlife is our
Life) which became an instant “hit” and evoked deep feelings in people for our biological
diversity.
Biodiversity touches every person’s heart or soul. It has multiple attributes. This
makes it important to both the committed naturalist and to the commercial exploiter. To
bring the two extremes together to achieve conservation is the challenge of the day. The
term “wildlife” did not achieve this, and the Sinhala term showcases that effectively, as the
pre-1990 translation of “wildlife” in Sinhala was “wanasaththu”, literally meaning wild
animals. This was changed to “wanajeewi” (jkÔù, i.e., wildlife) in 1990.
Similarly, biodiversity has woken the world to the diverse aspects of nature, and
its conservation viz., “the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield
the greatest sustainable benet to present generations while maintaining its potential to
meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.” (World Conservation Strategy, 1980,
pt. 4). This was the impetus for the denition of sustainable development espoused by
the Brundlandt Commission of 1987, later adopted by the Rio Conference 1992, and the
foundation of all actions to the present with respect to sustainable development.
In the future one must be conscious of and take into account all the elements of
biodiversity conservation, the shift from biological conservation to conservation biology,
the ecosystems approach, the landscape ecological approach, and adaptive management.
The emergence of ecosystem services, and economic aspects such as valuation and its
signicance have further socialized the concepts of conservation. These are present day
disciplines/approaches that the knowledge economy and society have to understand in
order to achieve the ultimate goal of nature conservation for the future.
19
S.W.Kotagama
Conclusion and the Way Forward
Since the adoption of the rst comprehensive Wildlife Policy in 1990, which was
principally to direct the development of the Protected Area system, the Policy underwent
revisions in 2000 to further broaden its mandate to include wider efforts at the conservation
of biodiversity and achieving sustainable development of the nation.
Taking into consideration Sri Lanka’s present effort to offer high standards of
livelihood to its people, a 10-year Wildlife Resources Conservation proposal was developed
based on the vision of “Wildlife is the Lifeline of the Nation” (DWC, 2015). The value
of biodiversity through its multiple uses in the modern world requires the outlook on
wildlife to go beyond the past. The CBD to which Sri Lanka is a signatory provides the
opportunity to maximize the benets of wildlife resources. Taking into consideration the
growing demand for numerous bio-products and the principles of bio-nancing, a new
wildlife resources approach is necessary. Five thrust areas are proposed as the way forward
as indicated below:
• mainstreaming wildlife resource conservation (WRC) for sustainable development
of the nation through integrating WRC objectives and practices with other development
sectors; promoting benet sharing for community development through participatory
approaches; resolving WRC conicts (e.g., human-elephant conict); and responding
to climate change (CC) (e.g., carbon assessments for the “Reduce Emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries” (REDD+) ) through
adaptation and mitigation in response to CC impacts.
• effecting the “Lifeline for Sustainable Development” by enabling bioprospecting
through legislation and development of a structural framework for development; linking
biodiversity through the “value chain”; increasing income generation from PA systems;
and promoting sustainable use of ex-situ biodiversity
• building the capacity of the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) for
adaptive management through marking boundaries and consolidating PAs; harnessing
information technology for effective management; upgrading the National Research and
Training Center at Giritale to an international level; re-assessing the DWC’s institutional
structure to meet eld-based ecosystems conservation; establishing and implementing a
biodiversity database; and enhancing eld staff benets for better output.
• looking beyond land-based conservation to the marine system through survey and
declaration of appropriate marine/ocean reserves for conservation; purchasing equipment
for patrolling and effecting conservation actions in the ocean; training and capacity
building of staff and equipping them with appropriate equipment; and developing new
marine based research, education, and training facilities.
• meeting regional and global obligations through strengthening the DWC to meet
these obligations.
Thus, these activities need to be incorporated in the above thrust areas where required,
along with building an international division in the DWC. The most pressing conventions
that require attention are Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
20
Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS), CBD, and Ramsar.
The future of sustainable biodiversity conservation in Sri Lanka lies, therefore, in
the proper understanding of the objectives of the CBD and aligning the FFPO objectives
with it as presented in the Policy of 2000. Despite the 2009 revisions of the FFPO falling
far short of the objectives of “conservation”, the FFPO still remains the principal legislation
to protect our biodiversity today.
References
Abeywickrama, B. A. (1986). The threatened plants of Sri Lanka. UNESCO and MAB national
committee for Sri Lanka, Publication No. 16. NARESA.
Bastianpillai, B. E. S. J. (1968). The Administration of Sir William Gregory, Governor of Ceylon
1872–77. Tisara Prakasakayo.
Clarke, F. C. H. (1890). Report of the Conservator of Forests for 1889. Forest Conservancy. Part IV –
Miscellaneous Ceylon Administration Report for the Year 1889. George J.A Skeen, Government
printer.
Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage; UNESCO; Adopted,
16 November 1972
Convention on Biological Diversity, December 29, 1993.
Coomaraswamy, V. (1939a). Administration Report of the Conservator of Forests for 1937. Part
II- Revenue (G).
Coomaraswamy, V. (1939b). Administration Report of the Conservator of Forests for 1938. Part
II- Revenue (G).
Coombe, G. (1942). Ceylon’s reserves, national parks and sanctuaries. LORIS: The Journal of Ceylon
Wildlife, 11(6).
Crusz, H. (1973). Nature conservation in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Biological Conservation, 5(3).
de Silva, J. A. (1951). Administration Report of the Conservator of Forests for 1949. Part II- Revenue
(G).
de Alwis, L. (1982). River basin development and protected areas in Sri Lanka. In, J. A. McNeely &
K. R. Miller (Eds.), National parks, conservation, and development: The role of protected areas
in sustaining society (Proceedings of the World Congress on National parks, Bali, Indonesia,
11–22 October 1982). Smithsonian Institution Press.
Department of Wildlife Conservation. (1990). A national policy for wildlife conservation in Sri
Lanka. Ministry of Lands, Irrigation and Mahaweli Development.
Department of Wildlife Conservation. (1992). A national policy for wildlife conservation of Sri
Lanka. Government of Sri Lanka.
21
S.W.Kotagama
Department of Wildlife Conservation. (2004). A guide to national parks of Sri Lanka (2nd ed.).
Department of Wildlife Conservation. (2013). Performance report – 2012.
http://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/performance_report_department_
of_wildlife_conservation_2012.pdf
Department of Wildlife Conservation. (2015). 10 year wildlife resources conservation plan.
Government of Sri Lanka.
Encyclopedia of Ceylon. (1902). https://www.1902encyclopedia.com/C/CEY/ceylon.html
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2. (1937). Government of Sri Lanka.
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. (1970). Government of Sri Lanka.
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 49. (1993). Government of Sri Lanka.
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 22. (2009). Government of Sri Lanka.
Fernando, M. P. S. (1987). Some forestation programme in Sri Lanka: A historical perspective. In K.
Vivekanandan (Ed.), 1887–1987: 100 years of forest conservation. Forest Department, Ministry
of Lands and Land Development.
Fernando, R. (1990). New organizational structure for management of wildlife resources by the
Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Forest Department. (1949). Forest Department administration report.
Forest (Amendment) Act No. 65, Supplement to Part II of the Gazette of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka. (2009).
From the Administration Report of the Acting Warden Department of Wildlife for 1968-69. (1971).
LORIS: The Journal of Wildlife Protection Society of Ceylon, 12(3), 140–147.
Government of Ceylon. (1934). Sessional Paper XIX – 1934. Report of the Fauna and Flora
Protection Committee, October 1934.
Government of Ceylon. (1930). Sessional Papers XXXIII – 1930. Report of the Select Committee on
the Game Protection Ordinance.
Government of Ceylon. (1959). Sessional Paper XIX – 1959. Report of the Committee on Preservation
of Wildlife.
Hoffmann. T. W. (1971). The Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (as amended by Act No.1 of
1970). LORIS: The Journal of Wildlife Protection Society of Ceylon, 12(3), pp 169–70.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. (1983). Proceedings of the IUCN General Assembly
1981, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Kaennel, M. (1998). Biodiversity: a diversity in denition. In P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, & R. Päivinen
(Eds), Assessment of biodiversity for improved forest planning (pp. 71–81).
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
22
Kotagama, S. W. (1989). Towards a national policy for wildlife conservation. Bio News, 5(1–2).
Lushington H. E. C. (1935). Administration report of the Acting Conservator of Forest for 1934. Part
II – Revenue (G).
Lushington H. E. C. (1948). Administration report of the Acting Conservator of Forests for 1946.
Part II- Revenue (G).
Lushington, H. E. C. (1949). Extracts from the administrative report of the Conservator of Forest
for 1948. LORIS: The Journal of Ceylon Wildlife published by the Ceylon Game and Fauna
Protection Society, 5(2), 172–173.
MAL & F. (1995). Sri Lanka Forestry Sector Master Plan. Forestry Planning Unit, Ministry of
Agriculture, Land and Forestry, Sri Lanka
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2006). Portfolio of strategic conservation sites /
protected area gap analysis in Sri Lanka. EML Consultants for the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources.
Ministry of Forestry and Environment. (1997). Designing an optimum protected areas system for Sri
Lanka’s natural forests, Volume 1. Environmental Management in Forestry Development Project.
Nanayakkara, V. R. (1987). Forest history of Sri Lanka. In K. Vivekanandan (Ed), 1887-1987: 100
Years of Forest Conservation. Forest Department, Ministry of Lands and Land Development.
National Forum on Biodiversity, September 21 – 24, 1986, Accession 92-030.
Nicholas, C. W. (1952). Administration report of the Warden, Department of Wildlife for 1951. Part
IV –Education, Science and Art (N). Government Press.
Nicholas, C. W. (1955). Administration report of the Warden, Department of Wildlife for 1954. Part
IV –Education, Science and Art (N). Government Press.
Norris, C. E. (1954a). National trust the only hope for Ceylon’s reserves. LORIS: The Journal of the
Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Ceylon, 6(6), 239–240.
Norris, C. E. (1954b). Alienation of land from Wilpattu National Reserve. LORIS: The Journal of the
Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Ceylon, 6(6), 241–248.
Pabla, H. S., & Mathur, V. B. (2001). Planning for conservation of biological diversity: Lessons
learnt from Sri Lanka. LORIS: The Journal of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of
Ceylon, 22(5), 30–36.
Panwar, H. S. (1994). Human resource development and institutional strengthening of the Department
of Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka: A review of requirements (Inception Report, UNO/
SRL/001/GEF). Department of Wildlife Conservation, Sri Lanka.
Parkeer, A. S. A. (1974). Gleanings from the Acting Director’s administration report 1969-70. LORIS:
The Journal of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Ceylon, 13(4).
23
S.W.Kotagama
Report of the Committee for the Formulation of a National Policy for the Preservation of Fauna and
Flora. (1985).
Saparamadu, S. (2006). Sri Lanka - A wildlife interlude, Volumes I and II. Tissara Prakasakayo.
Sinharaja Forest Reserve. (1988). UNESCO, World Heritage Convention, Date of Inscription: 1988;
Criteria: (ix)(x).
Storey, H. (1921). A Ceylon sportsman’s diary: An account of the author’s shooting experiences from
1909 to 1920 inclusive with numerous illustrations. Times of Ceylon.
Strong, T. A. (1940). Administration report of the Conservator of Forests for 1939. Part II- Revenue
(G).
Strong, T. A. (1942). Administration report of the Conservator of Forests for 1941. Part II- Revenue
(G).
Uragoda, C. (1994). Wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka: A history of Wildlife and Nature Protection
Society of Sri Lanka, 1894-1994. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka.
Webb, J. L. A., Jr. (2002). Tropical pioneers: Human agency and ecological change in the highlands
of Sri Lanka, 1800-1900. Ohio University Press.
World Conservation Strategy. (1980). Introduction, pt 4. IUCN, UNEP, & WWF.
Wickramagamage, P. (2017). Role of human agency in the transformation of the biogeography of Sri
Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science, 46(5), 19–31. http://doi.org/10.4038/cjs.v46i5.7452
Wikramanayake, E. B. (1954). Game protection and the law. LORIS: The Journal of the Wildlife and
Nature Protection Society of Ceylon, 6(6), 231–234.
Wildlife Department – Extracts from the Warden’s Administration Report 1951. (1952). LORIS: The
Journal of Ceylon Wildlife, 6(2), 66-69.
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
24
Appendix A
Legislative History of Sri Lanka (Ceylon then) from Crusz, Hilary (1973)
25
S.W.Kotagama
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
26
27
S.W.Kotagama
Appendix B
The National Policy for Wildlife Conservation 1990
The Cabinet approved Wildlife Policy has TWO parts. The rst part is the general Policy for
the entire sector. The SECOND part contain specic Policy directions for the Management
of Protected Areas which is the main instrument of wildlife conservation.
PART ONE
AN OVERALL POLICY FOR WILDLDIFE (BIODIVERSITY ) CONSERVATION IN
SRI LANKA, has the following three objectives:-
• TO MAINTAIN ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND LIFE-SUSTAINING
SYSTEMS
• TO PRESERVE GENETIC DIVERSITY, ESPECIALLY THE BIODIVERSITY
AND ENDEMIC BIOTA
• TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF THE WILDLIFE RESOURCE
PART TWO
This section contain SPECIFIC POLICIES TO ACHIEVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
THROUGH THE MAIN INSTRUMENT OF CONSERVATION – THE ESTABLISHMENT
AND MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS
1. IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.
Through the Formulation of a MANIFESTO OF VARIED OBJECTIVES which would
suite each AREA DECLARED FOR PROTECTION.
2. DEMARCATE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE WET ZONE TO PRESERVE
THE ENDEMISM AND BIODIVERSITY OF THE WET ZONE AS AN URGENT
MEASURE.
3. RE-ASSESS OBJECTIVES FOR PROTECTED AREAS, TO RE-ASSESS
ALL EXISTING PROTECTED AREAS, AND NEW AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR
PROTECTION, SCIENTIFICALLY AND EXAMINE WAYS AND MEANS OF
MEETING THE OBJECTIVES OF THESE AREAS, THEIR ECOLOGICAL
STABILITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.
4. RECOGNIZE HUMAN – USE IN PROTECTED AREAS, TO IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL HUMAN USES OF PROTECTED AREA WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE
WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AREA, REGULATE AND CONTROL THEIR
ACTIVITIES ON A SUSTAINABLE BASIS.
5. RECOGNIZE MULTILPE – USE IN PROTECTED AREAS, TO PERMIT
MULTIPLE USE OF PROTECTED AREAS, IN ACCORDANCE OF ITS
SUSTAINABILITY WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ECOLOGICAL STABILITY OF
THE AREA.
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
28
6. ESTABLISH ZONES IN PROTECTED AREAS, TO DEMARCATE ZONES OF
ACTIVITY TO ACHIEVE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PROTECTED
AREA. ALONG WITH OTHER SUSTAINABLE USES
7. INTRODUCE AN EFFECTIVE POLICY OF MANAGEMENT, TO ACCEPT AND
INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT FOR PROTECTED
AREAS TO ENSURE ECOLOGICQAL STABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY.
8. DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION, TO ESTABLISH LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DISBURSEMENT OF
BENEFITSFROMPROTECTED AREAS TO PEOPLE LIVING IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY OF THE AREAS.
9. RECOGNOTION OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AS PRIORITY NEEDS,
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN THE
EFFORTS OF CONSERVATION AND TO PROMOTE THE SAME.
10. ESTABLISH INTER-INSTITUTIONAL LINKS, TO BRING ABOUT A CLOSE
LINK BETWEEN INSTITUTES CONCERNED IN PROMOTING CONSERVATION
AND ALSO BETWEEN INSTITUTES CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPMENT, TO
ENSURE A MORE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION.
11. RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF EX-SITU CONSERVATION, TO
RECOGNISE AND PROMOTE THE CONCEPT OF EX-SITU CONSERVATION.
12. CREATE A NATIONAL CONSERVATION LAW, TO FORMULATE AND
IMPLEMENT A NATIONAL CONSERVATION LEGISLATION INCORPORATING
THE FOREGOING GUIDELINES AND ALSO THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT
OF CONSERVATION AS PRACTISED TODAY.
29
S.W.Kotagama
Appendix C
National Wildlife Policy for Sri Lanka-2000
(Approved by the cabinet of ministers (Cabinet Paper 00/1034/34/019).)
Overview
The rst National Policy on Wildlife Conservation was approved by cabinet in June 1990.
The present National Wildlife Policy addresses many of the same issues in updated form,
while also adding some points that respond to the evolving needs of Sri Lankan society and
the additional mandates of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which Sri Lanka
ratied in 1994.
It is the intention of Government to dene a strategy to implement this policy as soon as
possible through a Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan, supported by such legislative
measures as may be necessary to achieve harmony and success among all those who seek
to promote conservation and sustainable development in Sri Lanka.
1. Objecves of the Naonal Wildlife Policy
The Objectives of this National Policy are:
To conserve wildlife resources, through protection, research, education, sustainable use and
benet sharing, for the benet of present and future generation.
To maintain ecological processes and life-sustaining systems, with particular regard to
primary production, hydrological balance, nutrient cycles, and prevention of erosion,
siltation, drought and ood.
To manage all components of genetic diversity, as resources to improve crop plant and farm
animal, and to develop in a fair and equitable manner new product and processes through
bio-prospecting.
To ensure sustainable use and equitable sharing of benets, arising from the direct and
indirect use of wildlife resources and ecosystems.
To conserve native and endemic species and their habitats, so as to maintain the overall
species richness and ecological integrity of the country.
To encourage the development of biological repositories, for the purposes of conservation
education and science.
To encourage the private sector and communities to join as a full partners in all aspects of
the wildlife-conservation process.
University of Colombo Review (Series III), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021
30
2. Policy on Protected Area Management and wildlife Conservaon
National Policy in this area is:
To develop national strategies, plans and programmes for wildlife conservation, in line with
appropriate national and international standards.
To protect viable and representative samples of all ecosystems, including sites of special
scientic interest, and wherever necessary to enlarge and connect protected areas to create
viable conservation units.
To take urgent steps to conserve all remaining natural wet zone forests, which are under-
represented in the national systems of protected areas.
To identify, classify manage and monitor all protected areas, on the basis of appropriate
scientic studies and agreed criteria.
To manage all protected areas according to approved management plans, which will be
reviewed and revised regularly, and implemented by staff at the eld level who will be
afforded such authority and resources as they need to do so effectively.
To ensure that protected areas are internally zoned according to accepted criteria, to reect
the different resources within each zone and the most appropriate sustainable use of
resources.
To manage all protected areas the context of their surrounding landscapes, taking into
account the ecological, social and economics links between natural and human systems.
To promote active, ecosystem-based management of all protected areas, including the
eradication wherever possible of alien and invasive species, subject to though consideration
of the environmental impacts of these interventions.
To regulate the importation of alien organisms, including genetically-modied organisms,
so as to minimize risks to the integrity of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity.
To prepare and implement species recovery plant for all endangered species, using objective
criteria for their identication developed by a national task force or other expert consultative
mechanism.
To encourage and enable the sustainable the development of communities living around
protected areas, by ensuring that local people are consulted in the process of decision
making, actively participate in implementation, and receive direct benets from the
management of protected areas.
To facilitate eco-tourism in protected areas, to the extent that it provides benets to local
people and does not damage the ecosystem concerned.
31
S.W.Kotagama
3. Policy on instuonal Support for Wildlife Conservaon
National policy in this area is:
To provide adequate support to wildlife resource managers, and to reorient, strengthen
and decentralize their institutions as necessary to enable them to accomplish their task
effectively.
To amend or revise legislation as necessary to support the implementation of this policy.
To promote research and education as valuable contributors to the national effort on wildlife
conservation.
To value the traditional knowledge of sustainable ecosystem use possessed by the people of
Sri Lanka, and incorporate this as appropriate within wildlife-management systems.
To encourage ex-situ conservation measures, where they can be shown to contribute to
wildlife conservation, environmental education and the scientic understanding of how to
use biodiversity sustainably.
4. Policy on Inter-sectoral linkages
National Policy in this area is:
To monitor events and take action needed to maintain consistency between the national
wildlife policy and other sectoral and inter-sectoral policies.
To promote co-operation among stakeholders through participatory decision making at all
levels.
