Sri Lankan animal rights activists and elephant experts were saddened by the recent magistrate order permitting the release of 13 elephants alleged to have been illegally stolen from the wild, back to their captors. Meanwhile, a court case on another elephant, named Sujeewa, and her calf was set to be taken up on the 16th.
Conservationists, environmentalists, and animal rights groups believe this order was a result of the extraordinary gazette titled “Wildlife and Flora (Protection, Welfare, and Registration of Domestic Elephants) Regulation No. 1 of 2021”, which provides a set of limitations when taming elephants.
These limitations include mahouts not being able to consume drugs or alcohol while employed and also the introduction of a biometric identity card for elephants. The regulation also draws out measures to be taken by elephant owners and mahouts when taking care of the animals, including a mandatory minimum two-and-a-half-hour bath time for elephants every day.
However, activists claimed that Regulation No. 1 of 2021 appears to be in violation of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, and alleged that these regulations seem to be custom-made to satisfy the wants of racketeers.
Some background on existing laws on taming elephants in SL
The initial orders regulating tamed elephants were introduced in May 1991 by then Minister of Mahaweli Development Gamini Athukorala. These regulations stipulated that the State doesn’t grant permission to employ elephants for labour or tourism. Following this, another order in this regard was issued in the year 1994, which declared that elephants shall only be employed for cultural purposes which included the perahera.
In 2014, bearing in mind that the illegal capture of elephant calves poses a threat to the wild elephant population in the long term, a request was put forward to the Cabinet of Ministers seeking to regulate the registration of “tamed” elephants.
In 2016, then Minister of Wildlife Gamini Jayawickrama Perera presented another paper to the Cabinet, which concerned elephant welfare, employing them for labour, and seeking to regulate the registration of captive elephants. However, this document was criticised for not mentioning the employment of elephants for tourism-related activities.
The court order and its aftermath
Conservationists, environmentalists, and animal rights activists have united to oppose this new gazette and the magistrate order that followed. To get a clear idea of the situation, how this affects elephant conservation on the whole, and what can be done to mitigate this situation, we spoke to several conservationists and elephant experts, including Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka (WNPS) officials, Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR) Chairman and Scientist Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando, and Rally for Animal Rights and Environment (RARE) Communications Co-ordinator and animal rights activist Panchali Panapitiya.
Speaking to Brunch about the legal proceedings, a WNPS representative shared: “On 6 September 2021, based on the advice of the Attorney General (AG) and submissions made by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Colombo Additional Magistrate S. Prabhakaran issued an order to release 13 wild elephants stolen from the wild back to those who had abducted them. On 13 September 2021, the WNPS, with several other conservation organisations, made a representation by way of a motion against the said order, also in the Magistrate’s Court.
“The learned counsels, on behalf of the WNPS and other conservation organisations, submitted to the court that the said order given by the Magistrate was...against the basic principles enshrined in the laws of Sri Lanka, specifically the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. The counsels...pleaded that the court reverse the order issued on 6 September. Considering the submissions made by the counsels, the Chief Magistrate ordered the matter to be called again on 21 September before the same Additional Magistrate for his further judgment. The WNPS is closely monitoring the situation and is making every effort to save these gentle giants from being sentenced to a miserable life in chains with their previous captors, and to have them restored again to the safe custody of the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC).”
We were also informed that the Magistrate set a date for a trial for one of the elephants, on 16 September, separate from the rest of the 13 elephants. This elephant purportedly gave birth in captivity and the alleged captivator now claims custody over both the mother and the calf.
“One of the illegally captured elephants, ‘Sujeewa’, taken into state custody in 2016, gave birth to a calf, and the illegal owners are claiming both the mother and calf. The WNPS has intervened to prevent their release and would continue in its efforts to protect all captive elephants.
“Elephants don't belong in captivity, elephants belong in the jungles, to roam wild and free. We urge the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), as per the powers vested in them by the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and the mandate entrusted to them by the people of this nation, to exercise their authority to prevent this illegal act,” stated the WNPS representative.
The WNPS representative also added that the aim of these legal proceedings would be to fight for the welfare of these 14 elephants, to recall the order to release these elephants back to their captors, and to challenge, amend, or preferably nullify the gazette of 19 August on the basis that it sets a very bad precedent for elephant conservation.
Speaking on the matter, CCR Chairman and Scientist Dr. Fernando explained that this decision to return these stolen elephants back to their captors was against the basic principles of conservation.
“I mostly work with wild elephants and this decision, I believe, threatens their very existence, as it gives an opportunity for anyone to capture these beasts from the wild and have them registered. This decision is against the 1991 and 1994 orders and clearly, the Fauna and Flora (Ordinance), as it threatens wildlife – and these elephants were taken into the custody (of the CID) because they were illegally captured. It is absurd to me; what is the purpose of releasing elephants that have already been established to be illegally captured, to the same people who have allegedly committed this crime? The explanation for this decision is unclear, as it is also in contradiction to other laws in the country,” he claimed.
What does this mean for elephants in Sri Lanka?
RARE Communications Co-ordinator Panapitiya said: “The effects of the decision will be long-ranging and potentially catastrophic both for wild elephant populations and the specific elephants in this order.”
Panapitiya explained the impacts of the decision on two levels, noting that firstly, the elephants referred to in this court order now face the most tragic of lives at the behest of man. “The gruelling ‘training or taming’ they will undergo is unimaginably cruel; following that, the elephants will spend their lives deprived of virtually all natural behaviours and instead, face death in the chains of slavery. What the future of these elephants holds is not really life, but merely existence.”
Secondly, Panapitiya shared that Sri Lankan elephants are an endangered species listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and capturing an elephant from the wild has long been illegal in Sri Lanka. “These 14 elephants were illegally captured and therefore, both the catchers and the keepers, along with anyone else implicated in the racket, should be tried before a court,” Panapitiya claimed. “If this doesn’t happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. If wildlife smugglers are rewarded rather than punished, where is the deterrent? Where is the justice?” Panapitiya questioned, adding: “Elephant smuggling is big business with a lot of money to be made, and when the law and new regulations favour and incentivise smugglers, we can only expect to see more illegal captures occurring, which will be truly devastating for our already threatened wild elephant populations.”
For further insight, Brunch attempted to reach out to the DWC for their views. However, as the DWC is a party to the magistrate court case, officials have refrained from commenting on this matter until the case is concluded.
Sri Lanka’s relationship with its elephants has been troubled of late. Even during the pandemic, there have been increased incidences of human-elephant conflict (HEC). Elephant deaths have skyrocketed, with over 400 elephant deaths being reported in 2020, with HEC playing a major role in most of them. In 2021, there were 219 elephant deaths as of 11 August, which works out to roughly an elephant lost each day.
Sri Lanka’s elephants are one of our most prolific and charismatic natural resources. They are symbols of our nation and something we are famous for the world over. It is vital now more than ever to protect these gentle giants in all manners possible, and an important part of doing so is through appropriate legal protections.
These limitations include mahouts not being able to consume drugs or alcohol while employed and also the introduction of a biometric identity card for elephants. The regulation also draws out measures to be taken by elephant owners and mahouts when taking care of the animals, including a mandatory minimum two-and-a-half-hour bath time for elephants every day.
However, activists claimed that Regulation No. 1 of 2021 appears to be in violation of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, and alleged that these regulations seem to be custom-made to satisfy the wants of racketeers.
Some background on existing laws on taming elephants in SL
The initial orders regulating tamed elephants were introduced in May 1991 by then Minister of Mahaweli Development Gamini Athukorala. These regulations stipulated that the State doesn’t grant permission to employ elephants for labour or tourism. Following this, another order in this regard was issued in the year 1994, which declared that elephants shall only be employed for cultural purposes which included the perahera.
In 2014, bearing in mind that the illegal capture of elephant calves poses a threat to the wild elephant population in the long term, a request was put forward to the Cabinet of Ministers seeking to regulate the registration of “tamed” elephants.
In 2016, then Minister of Wildlife Gamini Jayawickrama Perera presented another paper to the Cabinet, which concerned elephant welfare, employing them for labour, and seeking to regulate the registration of captive elephants. However, this document was criticised for not mentioning the employment of elephants for tourism-related activities.
The court order and its aftermath
Conservationists, environmentalists, and animal rights activists have united to oppose this new gazette and the magistrate order that followed. To get a clear idea of the situation, how this affects elephant conservation on the whole, and what can be done to mitigate this situation, we spoke to several conservationists and elephant experts, including Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka (WNPS) officials, Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR) Chairman and Scientist Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando, and Rally for Animal Rights and Environment (RARE) Communications Co-ordinator and animal rights activist Panchali Panapitiya.
Speaking to Brunch about the legal proceedings, a WNPS representative shared: “On 6 September 2021, based on the advice of the Attorney General (AG) and submissions made by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Colombo Additional Magistrate S. Prabhakaran issued an order to release 13 wild elephants stolen from the wild back to those who had abducted them. On 13 September 2021, the WNPS, with several other conservation organisations, made a representation by way of a motion against the said order, also in the Magistrate’s Court.
“The learned counsels, on behalf of the WNPS and other conservation organisations, submitted to the court that the said order given by the Magistrate was...against the basic principles enshrined in the laws of Sri Lanka, specifically the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. The counsels...pleaded that the court reverse the order issued on 6 September. Considering the submissions made by the counsels, the Chief Magistrate ordered the matter to be called again on 21 September before the same Additional Magistrate for his further judgment. The WNPS is closely monitoring the situation and is making every effort to save these gentle giants from being sentenced to a miserable life in chains with their previous captors, and to have them restored again to the safe custody of the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC).”
We were also informed that the Magistrate set a date for a trial for one of the elephants, on 16 September, separate from the rest of the 13 elephants. This elephant purportedly gave birth in captivity and the alleged captivator now claims custody over both the mother and the calf.
“One of the illegally captured elephants, ‘Sujeewa’, taken into state custody in 2016, gave birth to a calf, and the illegal owners are claiming both the mother and calf. The WNPS has intervened to prevent their release and would continue in its efforts to protect all captive elephants.
“Elephants don't belong in captivity, elephants belong in the jungles, to roam wild and free. We urge the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), as per the powers vested in them by the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and the mandate entrusted to them by the people of this nation, to exercise their authority to prevent this illegal act,” stated the WNPS representative.
The WNPS representative also added that the aim of these legal proceedings would be to fight for the welfare of these 14 elephants, to recall the order to release these elephants back to their captors, and to challenge, amend, or preferably nullify the gazette of 19 August on the basis that it sets a very bad precedent for elephant conservation.
Speaking on the matter, CCR Chairman and Scientist Dr. Fernando explained that this decision to return these stolen elephants back to their captors was against the basic principles of conservation.
“I mostly work with wild elephants and this decision, I believe, threatens their very existence, as it gives an opportunity for anyone to capture these beasts from the wild and have them registered. This decision is against the 1991 and 1994 orders and clearly, the Fauna and Flora (Ordinance), as it threatens wildlife – and these elephants were taken into the custody (of the CID) because they were illegally captured. It is absurd to me; what is the purpose of releasing elephants that have already been established to be illegally captured, to the same people who have allegedly committed this crime? The explanation for this decision is unclear, as it is also in contradiction to other laws in the country,” he claimed.
What does this mean for elephants in Sri Lanka?
RARE Communications Co-ordinator Panapitiya said: “The effects of the decision will be long-ranging and potentially catastrophic both for wild elephant populations and the specific elephants in this order.”
Panapitiya explained the impacts of the decision on two levels, noting that firstly, the elephants referred to in this court order now face the most tragic of lives at the behest of man. “The gruelling ‘training or taming’ they will undergo is unimaginably cruel; following that, the elephants will spend their lives deprived of virtually all natural behaviours and instead, face death in the chains of slavery. What the future of these elephants holds is not really life, but merely existence.”
Secondly, Panapitiya shared that Sri Lankan elephants are an endangered species listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and capturing an elephant from the wild has long been illegal in Sri Lanka. “These 14 elephants were illegally captured and therefore, both the catchers and the keepers, along with anyone else implicated in the racket, should be tried before a court,” Panapitiya claimed. “If this doesn’t happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. If wildlife smugglers are rewarded rather than punished, where is the deterrent? Where is the justice?” Panapitiya questioned, adding: “Elephant smuggling is big business with a lot of money to be made, and when the law and new regulations favour and incentivise smugglers, we can only expect to see more illegal captures occurring, which will be truly devastating for our already threatened wild elephant populations.”
For further insight, Brunch attempted to reach out to the DWC for their views. However, as the DWC is a party to the magistrate court case, officials have refrained from commenting on this matter until the case is concluded.
Sri Lanka’s relationship with its elephants has been troubled of late. Even during the pandemic, there have been increased incidences of human-elephant conflict (HEC). Elephant deaths have skyrocketed, with over 400 elephant deaths being reported in 2020, with HEC playing a major role in most of them. In 2021, there were 219 elephant deaths as of 11 August, which works out to roughly an elephant lost each day.
Sri Lanka’s elephants are one of our most prolific and charismatic natural resources. They are symbols of our nation and something we are famous for the world over. It is vital now more than ever to protect these gentle giants in all manners possible, and an important part of doing so is through appropriate legal protections.