With the National People’s Power Government led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake ascending to power with a large mandate, the public’s expectations around the oft-mentioned goal of eradicating rural poverty have significantly increased. To fulfill those expectations, minimising the human-elephant conflict, now widespread across much of Sri Lanka’s dry zone, must be made a national priority.
In this context, Sri Lankan environmentalists and scholars have consistently called for a rapid, holistic, and science-based response, moving beyond the outdated, unscientific, and failed methods currently employed to manage this complex human-wildlife conflict. What the Government promised and the people expected was the effective resolution of our burning issues through a logical, science-based approach. However, experts have raised serious concerns that the authorities’ current approach rooted in unfounded beliefs and a lack of scientific understanding is worsening the problem instead of addressing rural poverty.
National economy
On June 20 it was announced that during a meeting held at the Presidential Secretariat the President had instructed officials to urgently implement a comprehensive mechanism to address the human-elephant conflict, which severely affects both rural livelihoods and the national economy.
Accordingly, officials have been directed to appoint district-level committees within the next month in areas affected by human-elephant conflict. Further instructions include recruiting retired officers on a contract basis to fill vacancies in the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), deploying trained Civil Security Personnel to assist the department, and drafting a relevant legal framework. The President emphasized the need to streamline current operations jointly conducted by the Police, Security Forces, and Wildlife officials.
However, the measures already taken—and those now proposed appear to reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of the root causes of human-elephant conflict, elephant behaviour, and the effectiveness of different mitigation strategies.
Resolving a conflict with one of the most intelligent, powerful, and emotionally sensitive species on earth demands an evidence-based understanding of elephant behaviour, their responses to mitigation actions, and the effectiveness of mitigation actions. The failure to take these into account in the past, has contributed to Sri Lanka becoming the country with the world’s most intense human-elephant conflict—marked by significant public expenditure and increasing rural suffering.
In 2020, it was scientifically demonstrated that human-elephant conflict is reported from eight eight Provinces, 19 Districts and 131 Divisional Secretariats in Sri Lanka, and globally, Sri Lanka has the highest annual elephant deaths and the second-highest human fatalities due to such conflicts. Scientific research has also shown that the conflict is intensifying in both severity and geographical spread.
Another key milestone in that year was the preparation of the National Action Plan for the Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict. It was developed by a Presidential Committee comprising wildlife experts, relevant State Department Heads, and District Secretaries from conflict-prone areas. The plan recommended abandoning methods like elephant translocations and drives that have been undertaken for decades and consistently failed to resolve the conflict, and instead focusing on proven strategies such as community-based permanent village electric fencing and community-based seasonal agricultural electric fencing to protect villages and farmlands from elephant depredation.
Although the National Action Plan for the Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict was developed after 2019, it was shelved, with the Government at the time taking no steps to implement it. The recommended Presidential Task Force was never appointed. During President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure, a committee was instead formed to facilitate and oversee implementation. Despite lacking authority and funding, limited actions were taken—most notably the installation of over 300 community-based paddy field electric fences across Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Puttalam, Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Trincomalee, Moneragala, and Hambantota Districts by the Department of Agrarian Development. Combined with a significant reduction in elephant drives and translocations by the DWC, these efforts contributed to a drop in both human and elephant fatalities in 2024—the first such decline in nine years.
Since the beginning of the current administration, environmentalists and scientists have consistently called for the full and proper implementation of the Action Plan but to no avail yet.
Elephant drives
At the June 20 meeting on mitigating the human-elephant conflict participants included District Secretaries from the most affected regions—Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Puttalam, Kurunegala, Ampara, Hambantota, and Moneragala—alongside officials from the DWC. Ironically, many of these officials, or their predecessors, were involved in drafting the National Action Plan. Yet, none took the opportunity to inform authorities about the repeated failure of elephant drives or the proven success of community-based electric fencing. Instead, they reinforced misguided policies, steering decision-makers further down a path of failure.
The DWC has now resumed elephant drives—attempts to force elephants into protected areas—and the translocation of elephants to the controversial ‘Elephant Rehabilitation Center’ in Horowpathana, despite prior Government audits showing their ineffectiveness.
The first drive, in Kekirawa in December 2024, failed outright as elephants refused to move. A subsequent large-scale operation in Anuradhapura—targeting Shrawastipura, Thalawa, Oyamaduwa, Thanthirimale, and Morawewa—also collapsed, resulting instead in heightened damage to crops, homes, and property. In March 2025, another drive from Mahakumbukkadawala, Anamaduwa, and Karuwalagaswewa in Puttalam to Sellankanda/Tabbowa ended in similar failure, with villagers reporting increased elephant raids. Drives in Matale and Polonnaruwa followed, again with no success. Now, new operations are being planned for Kurunegala, Ampara, and Hambantota.
This recent string of failures only reinforces what six decades of experience have already proven: elephant drives are a deeply flawed and ineffective solution to human-elephant conflict.
Elephant drives involve hundreds of people going into forests and creating large-scale disturbance, the lighting of thousands of firecrackers, and shooting at elephants with rubber bullets and SG cartridges, subjecting elephants to severe stress and extreme conflict. This leads to elephants becoming terrified of people and responding with increased aggression upon encountering humans. After conducting such operations, which invariably fail to eliminate elephants from drive areas, the politicians and officials responsible depart, leaving rural communities to deal with the enraged elephants, at the cost of their lives.
Traditional approaches
These operations also entail significant financial costs, for salaries and bonuses of personnel, their transport, board and lodging, for explosives, ammunition and drones. Such exercises were welcomed as there were many who gained financial and other benefits under the previous Government. While this may not be the case under the current Government, the pressing question remains: who should be held accountable for repeatedly investing public funds in ineffective operations that only deepen the crisis?
Recent decisions related to human-elephant conflict management reflect a continued lack of scientific and evidence-based thinking among the authorities and officials. The action taken by various actors including suppressing expert input, undermining conservation efforts, and promoting failed strategies highlight a troubling pattern. While the growing interest in addressing the issue is welcomed, genuine progress requires informed, science-driven engagement rather than superficial or misguided interventions.
The noticeable absence of the Ministry of Environment in key decisions related to elephant management raises questions about the consistency and scientific grounding of the current approach. The involvement of actors outside the traditional environmental and conservation spheres in directing the actions of the DWC has created confusion and undermined the coherence of efforts to address this nationally significant issue.
Despite ongoing recommendations from experts and environmentalists for a coordinated, evidence-based, and scientific response, current efforts continue to focus on confining elephants to protected areas—a method with limited success. The recent expansion of electric fence workers and Civil Security personnel reflects a return to traditional approaches that, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently slow progress in effectively mitigating human-elephant conflict.
These developments highlight the need for renewed commitment to innovative, science-driven strategies to truly address the challenges faced by both rural communities and elephant populations. Without this, there is a risk of intensifying the conflict rather than resolving it, undermining genuine efforts to improve rural livelihoods and co-existence.
Supun Lahiru Prakash is an environmental researcher and writer specialising in human-elephant conflict and wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka.
