The National Aqua Culture Development Authority of Sri Lanka (NAQDA) is making its contribution towards economic development by establishing an aquaculture farm; and the initial steps have commenced in this regard. However, as the land chosen for this project is the Vedithalathivu protected forest that was declared a nature reserve in 2015, it has to be de-gazetted as protected in order to move on with the project. Despite the NAQDA giving its best efforts to ensure the million-dollar project follows through, the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) is not keen to release the said land and de-gazette it as a protected area. Speaking to The Sunday Morning, DWC Director – Operations Manjula Amararathne stated that it is essential to conduct an environmental study before de-gazetting a protected area under the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance of Sri Lanka. “We have submitted the report to a technical committee and an expert committee, and both committees stated that clearing the area needed for this project will have a significant impact on the rest of the reserve,” he said. However, according to NAQDA Chairman Nuwan Prasanna Madawan Arachchi, the National Aquatic Resource Research and Development Agency (NARA) deemed 1,000 hectares of the proposed 1,500 hectares of the project suitable for aquaculture. Amararathne further stated that it is highly unlikely that the DWC will clear the area for the proposed project. “We have considered several aspects such as hydrology, flora and fauna, and biodiversity in the area and have come to this conclusion,” he said. The first stage of the project was to obtain the necessary approvals from the DWC to clear the necessary area that was needed for the project; but considering the situation, it may not be cleared. “According to the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance, you need department approval, which will not be granted,” informed Amararathne. A survey conducted by the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme found that “almost 75% of the world’s freshwater was being devoted to agriculture and livestock; approximately 60 billion tonnes of renewable (freshwater and biomass) and non-renewable resources (oil, gas, and minerals) are extracted globally every year; urban areas have more than doubled since 1992 at the expense of forests and wetlands; and fertiliser has produced more than 400 dead zones in the oceans, equalling an area greater than the size of the UK”. However, the words of Kenyan ecologist and former African Conservation Centre Director Helen Gichohi communicate the balance needed between environmental conservation and economic development in Africa. “We need to present proper, science-based criteria that will allow us to secure these large landscapes as economic development progress.” In response to the decision taken by the DWC, Madawan Arachchi stated that the obstruction of the project is at the cost of millions in foreign currency entering the country’s economy. “This is a critical turning point in our country’s economy; agriculture is still the main component of exports in the country, but we still don’t have steady revenue as we still stick to conventional agricultural exports such as tea, rubber, and coconut. This project was a development opportunity for the country,” said Madawan Arachchi. He further stated that a social benefit assessment should be conducted and its results taken into consideration when doing these projects. “Sometimes, we need to consider the social impact as well as the environmental impact and compare them; if there is a greater social benefit and it would work towards the benefit of the country, certain things should be given approval,” he said. The Chairman expressed his disappointment and mentioned that there should be a moral code that should dictate these types of decisions. “We have to ask whether it’s worth having people starve and beg. There should be a middle ground,” he said. He further mentioned that there should be alternative ways of obtaining approval. “If the DWC feels this project might threaten the remaining area, they should propose alternative ways and recommend options and conditions to reduce the impact, and with technological advancement, aquaculture can be done with little to no environmental consequences,” he said. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: “The links between the economy and the environment are manifold: The environment provides resources to the economy and acts as a sink for emissions and waste. Natural resources are essential inputs for production in many sectors, while production and consumption also lead to pollution and other pressures on the environment. Poor environmental quality, in turn, affects economic growth and wellbeing by lowering the quantity and quality of resources or due to health impacts, etc. In this context, environmental policies can curb the negative feedback from the economy on the environment (and vice versa). But how effective they are and whether they generate a net benefit or a net cost to society is the subject of much debate and depends on the way they are designed and implemented.” According to Madawan Arachchi, the argument of the DWC for the obstruction of this project was that the action of de-gazetting a protected area was never done before. “They said they are afraid of setting the trend of de-gazetting protected areas,” he said. However, Amararathne said they took other factors into consideration as well. He stressed on the fact that development cannot be achieved without an inflow of foreign currency, stating: “We must take care to leave room for development, all while conserving the environment. Finding a middle ground between these factors is absolutely essential.” According to a paper published by former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono titled “Economic growth can complement environmental conservation” with the affiliation of the OECD, Yudhoyono states: “While I was President, we began to implement a four-track development strategy that is pro-poor, pro-job creation, pro-growth, and pro-environment. We wanted to ensure a strong, balanced, sustainable, and inclusive growth without damaging the environment.” Taking this approach, the Indonesian economy achieved an average economic growth rate of 5.9% from 2009 to 2013. Meanwhile, the poverty rate declined. In 2000, the proportion of Indonesians living below the poverty line was 19.4%. By 2013, it had significantly declined to 11.3%. All of this was done while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a projected 26% by 2020. – Tharumalee Silva