By Dayananda Karyawasam
Director, Department of Wildlife Conservation
Eco-development is one of the few buzzwords that are currently in fashion. The "eco" part is derived from the Greek word for "home" and hence both economists and ecologists claim to have the common goal of working for the welfare of mankind. Yet, in reality, economists and ecologists have often been at loggerheads. Despite its wealth of natural resources, Sri Lanka still ranks as one of the economically underdeveloped nations in the world, heavily dependent on foreign aid for its survival. We are facing a dilemma: as one of the custodians of rich biodiversity and charismatic megafauna, we are forced to assume responsibility for their protection. Yet at the same time, faced with an expanding human population, collapsing economy and crippling foreign debt, we are in desperate need of new resources to bolster the ailing economy. This is why, until recently, much of the emphasis of our development policy has been on improving the island’s economic growth since it was assumed to be synonymous with development. Indicators of the nation’s progress were measured in terms of gross national product and per capita income, with scant regard to the environmental costs such development entails. Even international donor agencies tied their loans to projects that had the potential to enhance economic growth, with little concern for the environment. Concern for environmental issues has often been viewed by development agencies either as a luxury many Third World countries can ill afford, or as anti-development, and therefore against the interest of the poor. Today however, many enlightened economists and donor agencies have come to realize that economic growth alone cannot lead to long term economic prosperity of a nation, if it is destructive to the environment and the natural resources.

In the past, much of our environmental problems was attributed to the explosive growth in human population, currently estimated to be about 20 million and growing at an annual rate of 2.1%. It is simply not a matter of numbers. In the west, even with much less dense human population, environmental issues have become critical. Neglect of the environment over the years has reduced greatly the power of our natural resources to sustain their productivity. When productivity of natural resources decline, the problem of poverty becomes more acute and visible. Today, the Forest Department (FD) and the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) administer almost 30% of the island’s land area, of which the DWC accounts for almost 13% - a notable achievement for a Third World country. Nevertheless, we have not been able to achieve our conservation goals, as a result of the loss of habitat from the need to feed an expanding human population. Given the small size of the island and the relatively dense human population of almost 300 per sq. km, it is no longer possible to increase the extent of our protected areas. In many instances, it is difficult to know where a reserve ends and a village begins, as people driven by poverty encroach into protected areas to survive. We need to understand the ecological roots of poverty if we are to succeed in conservation. Years of indifference to the environmental consequences of our economic development have contributed to the present crises facing the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

The main achievement of the country’s pioneers of conservation has been the establishment of a system of protected areas where there is the minimum of human interference and which are sufficiently large and well guarded to ensure the survival of wild fauna and flora. While the DWC is capable of protecting the wildlife within the system of protected areas, ensuring the long-term survival of especially large, highly mobile animals outside the network of protected areas has proved more difficult. In the west, with the wholesale over-exploitation of wildlife during the nineteenth century, the system of protected areas has proved highly successful in salvaging a few species from the brink of extinction. It has also generated strong public support for wildlife conservation. But in Sri Lanka, communities living in the periphery of the reserves are obliged to bear the costs of grazing ungulates and breeding waterfowl, but are denied a reasonable share of the benefits generated by that resource. The result is apathy towards wildlife and downright disrespect for the wildlife regulations imposed by the state, with people encroaching into protected areas, poaching wildlife, promoting cattle grazing, extracting timber illegally, and setting fire to the forest etc. There is a need for a paradigm shift if conservation is to make sense to these people. It is time for a more realistic approach to conservation of renewable resources, including wildlife and protected areas, with their obvious potential to benefit the poor.

For every species we save, we need to create jobs and opportunities to alleviate the poverty of the rural people. To prevent poaching and encroachment, we need to provide alternative means of livelihood for the people, such as organic farming, horticulture, etc. Much could he accomplished if derelict lands can be rehabilitated by growing more fuelwood trees. To prevent the invasion of the protected areas (PAs) by cattle, we need to establish pastures outside the PAs. Elephants are now being confined to smaller ranges by the expansion of human development that they often raid communities that have replaced them. Clearly PAs can never be large enough to contain such highly mobile species as the elephant, but improvement of the habitat within the PAs through the adoption of appropriate land-use may help reverse the trend to a certain extent. Unless conservation benefits the poor that live along the periphery of PAs, the people concerned will view wildlife more as a liability than an asset.

The Government has indeed taken a bold step in bringing Forestry and Wildlife Conservation under one Ministry - the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. It is equally possible that the Coast Conservation Department too might be brought under the same ministry. Thus the message from the Government is clear: it considers the environment as the number one priority. Furthermore, the Ministry is headed by none other than Hon. Rukman Senanayake who is well known for his steadfast concern for wildlife and the environment in the past. Such a move augurs well for conservation in general, and it creates an environment free of political innuendo and horse-trading. Therefore no one in the Natural Resources Sector would have any fear of politicizing the sectoral matters.
(Continued on Monday)