Beyond the killing of Kawanthissa: Political economy and institutional accountability of wildlife conservation

• Towards a new conservation policy based on scientific knowledge, community participation, and accountability

The death of Kawanthissa is a tragedy we cannot forget. It cannot be dismissed as merely the death of another wild elephant. There are many lessons to be learned from this incident. Above all, it provides an important opportunity to rethink wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has a long history of protecting wildlife. We have laws, State institutions, and protected areas established for this purpose. Yet, we have still not succeeded sufficiently in protecting the lives of elephants or ensuring the safety of the people, who live alongside them. Why is this the case?

The circumstances that led to Kawanthissa’s death must be established through a proper investigation. If there was a failure to perform official duties, those responsible must be identified. But we must not stop there. We must review the entire system to prevent similar incidents from occurring again.

Wildlife conservation is not merely an environmental issue. It is also connected to the economy, social justice, and governance. Land use, agriculture, tourism, and development projects all affect wildlife. Some groups benefit from these decisions, while others are forced to bear the costs.

In this context, we must ask three simple questions: Who makes the decisions? Who benefits? Who bears the costs?

These three questions are essential to understanding the political economy of wildlife conservation.

Wildlife conservation and the responsibility of State institutions

Sri Lanka has numerous institutions responsible for wildlife conservation. Considerable funds and resources are allocated to them. Yet, the existence of institutions alone is not evidence of success.

How many field visits have officials conducted? How many electric fences have been constructed? How many awareness programmes have been held?

These are important facts. But they are not enough to measure success.

We must ask several other questions. Have human and elephant deaths declined? Has crop damage been reduced? Have elephant habitats been protected? Do injured animals receive prompt treatment?

The success of a state institution should not be measured solely by the amount of work it has carried out. It must be assessed according to the actual results produced by that work.

This requires clear targets, reliable information, and independent evaluations. The officials and institutions responsible must also be clearly identified.

The political economy of human–elephant conflict

Human–elephant conflict is not merely an environmental problem. It directly affects rural economies and 

people’s lives.

For a farmer who regularly suffers elephant damage, the elephant is a threat to income and personal safety. For someone living in a city, however, the elephant may be a symbol of our national heritage.

We must understand both perspectives.

The benefits of wildlife conservation accrue to the entire country. These include tourism revenue, biodiversity, and ecological balance. Yet, the damage caused by wildlife is borne disproportionately by certain rural communities.

This is a problem of the unfair distribution of benefits and costs.

Therefore, wildlife conservation must be linked to the protection of people’s livelihoods. Fair compensation, effective measures to prevent elephant damage, and alternative sources of income are essential.

Protecting elephants and protecting people must not be treated as opposing 

objectives.

Beyond centralised bureaucratic control

Wildlife management requires scientific knowledge. National laws and oversight are also necessary. However, limiting all decisions to a few central institutions can create practical difficulties.

Villagers possess valuable knowledge about elephant routes, elephant behaviour, and areas of risk. Much of this knowledge is based on long-term experience.

Yet, this knowledge is not given sufficient consideration in decision-making.

A district-level conservation programme based on community participation is therefore necessary. Wildlife officials, local authorities, farmer organisations, and researchers should all be involved.

Community participation should not be limited to inviting people to meetings. They must have a genuine opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their lives.

This would make it possible to identify solutions suited to local needs. It would also increase public support for implementing those solutions.

What happened to existing national policies?

Sri Lanka does not need to develop wildlife conservation policies from scratch.

The National Action Plan for Mitigating Human–Elephant Conflict, prepared in 2020, provides an important foundation for this purpose.

The plan recognised that it is not practical to confine elephants exclusively to protected areas. It noted that approximately 70% of the areas inhabited by elephants are also occupied by people.

Therefore, the problem cannot be solved simply by attempting to separate elephants and people completely.

What is needed now is not another policy document. We must determine the extent to which the existing plan has been implemented.

A report is needed on the work completed, programs delayed, and funds spent. The results achieved through those efforts must also be made public.

There is no point in preparing another plan without first identifying why previous plans were not implemented.

(The author is Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Colombo)