The broader Lankan relationship with the north is nuanced, to say the least. For much of the last 50 years it has been inaccessible because of the civil war, and, post-war, for many reasons, it is yet to capture attention in the same manner as Lankan destinations in other parts of the island.

Of course, not every part of Sri Lanka needs to be a destination, but that is not to say that the north doesn’t have a lot to offer. The heart of the Northern Province holds a treasure trove of biodiversity and natural beauty that has long captivated the imagination of conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts. It is also home to some of Sri Lanka’s largest uninterrupted forest cover. 

Earlier this week, well-known conservation scientist and University of Vavuniya Department of Bio-Science Senior Lecturer Dr. S. Wijeyamohan, who has long championed the cause of conservation in the north and the east, spoke at the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society (WNPS) Monthly Public Lecture on the topic of wildlife and wilderness in the north. The WNPS Sri Lanka’s Monthly Public Lecture is a series of lectures on wildlife ecology, conservation, and management. 

Dr. Wijeyamohan’s expertise as a conservation scientist has seen him serve as a mentor and guide for many young scientists and researchers of the north and the east. He is also a member of the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group and of the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group, and has numerous publications to his credit.

For decades, he has campaigned for effective and sustainable conservation of wildlife and wilderness in the north and east and to lift the fog of ignorance that often surrounds these vastly biodiverse and increasingly threatened vitally precious areas. 

During the WNPS Public Lecture, Dr. Wijeyamohan called for sustainable and mindful conservation strategies that take into account the people of the north and how they engage with the wilderness around them. 

He also questioned how conservation was currently approached, especially when it came to balancing human progress and preserving biodiversity, and The Sunday Morning Brunch caught up with Dr. Wijeyamohan to delve into some of these perspectives further. 

The north: A wilderness preserved by circumstance

The history of the north plays a part in its state as a biodiversity hub today, Dr. Wijeyamohan explained to Brunch: “The north has been a wilderness from ancient times till now. That is the major part of it,” he said, noting: “It was the war that [inadvertently] saved the northern forests.”

When considering the history of ecological studies and conservation efforts in Sri Lanka – which, from Dr. Wijeyamohan’s perspective, mainly took place from the 1970s onwards as this was when the biggest strides in the field of biodiversity and conservation took place – the northern wilderness has been largely out of reach. By the time researchers began exploring the ecological treasures of the country, the north had become inaccessible due to the escalating conflict. 

“By 1983-’84, the conflict had intensified to the point where people from the south were uninterested in northern biodiversity,” Dr. Wijeyamohan reflected, adding that in the past, the north’s wilderness had made it a popular retreat for elite hunters, both foreign and local, with regions like Mannar, Vavuniya, and Puliyankulam being renowned hunting grounds. 

The war’s role in preserving the north’s biodiversity, Dr. Wijeyamohan noted, came through the need for cover as part of military strategy. This meant that not only were much of the northern forests preserved during the war, but in some cases, they were also expanded upon. 

The end of the war in 2009 saw a pivotal shift in the spotlight towards the unexplored north. “Post-2009, everyone’s eyes turned towards the north as an unexplored paradise. There was a sudden rush to preserve the forests,” Dr. Wijeyamohan said.

With this newfound attention came a great deal of much-needed study into the north’s biodiversity, but this came at a cost to the northern people, who after three decades of conflict were now faced with the challenge of preserving these forests (old and new) while rebuilding their lives. 

Herein lies one of the most crucial issues that can often be overlooked when addressing conservation in the north. Many residents of the Northern Province had called these lands home for generations. As Dr. Wijeyamohan pointed out, many of these people had seen their once-peaceful villages and lands become conflict zones.

Now, as they sought to rebuild their lives and reclaim their land, well-intentioned conservation policies often hindered their efforts, not just in terms of physical boundaries by newly-declared protected areas and national parks, but also in terms of how they moved about the land and how they used its resources. 

And this was where the need for people-centric conservation strategies came in, Dr. Wijeyamohan shared, especially in the northern context: “While the region’s wilderness is admired by people in the south, for the people living there it’s a big question, because they are living in it. It’s easy to appreciate the wilderness when you don’t have to live in it.”

Balancing conservation and human progress

Following the war, numerous areas in the north were named protected zones on environmental grounds. Conservation efforts and discussions frequently led to the creation of national parks and sanctuaries, which brought with them a change in the status of these lands. And for the people of the north, this brings with it a new set of challenges that can often breed resentment. 

“Protected areas and national parks are typically considered conservation sites,” Dr. Wijeyamohan explained, noting that upgrading protected areas and sanctuaries to national parks greatly impacted the people in those areas. For example, a person can enter a sanctuary without special permission – they can pass through. This is not the case with a national park. There needs to be very specific permission obtained as well as more stringent regulations to follow. 

There is an economic as well as a conservation motive to creating a national park – they can be more easily used to generate revenue. But this isn’t always the case. Using the example of Delft Island, part of which was declared a national park in 2015, Dr. Wijeyamohan noted that it remained underdeveloped.

“These zones are established with the aim of allowing regulated visitation under permission, and generating revenue for the Government. Madhu Road and even Delft, with its expansive national park status, remained underdeveloped. It’s evident that we need to strike a balance between conservation and economic activity to encourage people to visit these regions.”

Most importantly, these decisions need to include the voices of those who live in these areas. “From the perspective of the people living in these areas, there’s a significant question,” Dr. Wijeyamohan noted. “How can you preserve wilderness when you have lived in it for generations and now, suddenly, it’s considered ‘protected’? The concept of what’s worth preserving should be seen through the eyes of the people who inhabit these regions.”

People-centric conservation

In a country that has seen more than its fair share of ethnic conflict, Dr. Wijeyamohan believes that conservation should unite people, not divide them, and current conservation strategies can sometimes serve to divide – especially when it comes to land that people in the north were forced to abandon due to the conflict and now face losing to conservation decisions. 

Dr. Wijeyamohan stressed on the need to understand the people and their attachment to the land. He acknowledged the complexity of the situation, where land that had once been inhabited by people had now transformed into a forest. The challenge lies in finding a balance between conservation efforts and the needs of the local communities.

While advocating for conservation, Dr. Wijeyamohan also emphasised the importance of addressing the concerns of the people, which may sometimes go against the grain of established conservation practice.

For instance, hunting has been a part of the culture in these areas – often for the sustenance of the local community – and there is a need to strike a balance between conservation and the livelihoods of the people. More mindful systems that allow some hunting to take place are needed, especially for those who live off the land, but the line needs to be drawn at commercialised bushmeat, which leads to overhunting and then impacts the local ecosystem. 

Dr. Wijeyamohan asked the question of who should be more heavily penalised – the illegal poacher hunting for commercial gain and who risks upsetting ecosystems by creating artificial demand for bushmeat or the local community hunting for food that has been part of their culture for generations and whose activities could serve to strengthen the ecosystem of the area by managing the population of particular species. 

On a somewhat related note, Dr. Wijeyamohan also questioned current wildlife conservation strategies, which often tend to focus on building up wildlife populations to the same sizes that they were 100 years ago or so in the past, giving rise to the question on whether we really consider if the size of a current wildlife population needs increasing or whether is it already enough for the modern ecosystem in which it currently lives. He also noted that the first approach was partly responsible for the ever-increasing levels of human-animal conflict that we observed.

Due to this approach, he explained that many animals had become pests in the north – a concept different from the south. “Even lizards are considered pests because they eat corn seeds. These are challenges that science has not considered. Conservation must always be a people-based exercise.”

The north as an ecotourism destination

The northern wilderness has incredible potential as a tourist destination, showcasing Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity. However, the development of ecotourism in this region faces unique challenges. 

“Tourism in the north is just beginning to flourish. I’m not sure if our top tour operators are actively encouraging people to visit the north,” Dr. Wijeyamohan said, adding that many tourists stayed for a mere two to three days at most, which was not optimal for them to see the island including the north. As a result, tour operators are more likely to push traditional destinations over the more unusual ones like the north, especially since the north, despite having made great progress since the war, still lags behind in terms of general development. 

With a current focus on generating revenue to help the country overcome the economic crisis, Dr. Wijeyamohan noted that Sri Lanka was veering dangerously towards becoming a mass tourism destination and that the unchecked growth of mass tourism could have detrimental effects on the environment and wildlife of the country as a whole. 

Dr. Wijeyamohan emphasised that ecotourism needed to be tightly controlled and should never exceed 10% of the scale of mass tourism. Moreover, he highlighted the need to increase the value of ecotourism so that it would benefit local communities. Unfortunately, he pointed out that Sri Lanka’s current approach to ecotourism in the north was limited, primarily focusing on setting up basic accommodations and food services.

To make ecotourism sustainable and beneficial to the local population, there is a need for a more comprehensive strategy. Dr. Wijeyamohan believes that the key is to engage with the people in the region, educate them about the importance of conservation, and involve them in the management of ecotourism initiatives. 

“We must live with these people, show them their resources, and teach them why it’s crucial to preserve the environment.”

It’s all about people

Dr. Wijeyamohan’s message of people-centric conservation is not just for conservationists, scientists, and policymakers. It’s a message for everyone.

The issues people face in the north when it comes to dealing with conservation are not entirely dissimilar to those from the south. Farmers in Hambantota, for example, could share similar perspectives on the struggle of making a living in the periphery of a national park and dealing with animals who are protected from a conservation perspective, but are seen as pests from a practical and livelihood perspective. 

A people-centric approach to conservation is one where all voices are heard. It’s a reminder that we are a part of this intricate ecosystem and it’s our responsibility to protect it. Conservation must always be a people-based exercise. “Safeguarding the people we love always comes first. When people are suffering, they won’t care about wilderness and conservation. To gain value for the entire country, it’s important to come together.”