Sri Lanka stands at a critical moment in its environmental governance. As the country advances its national reporting and planning under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it has an opportunity to position itself as a regional leader in biodiversity conservation. But that leadership will be judged not by what is written in reports; but by who is heard in the process of writing them.

Across coastal, forest, and rural landscapes, communities whose lives are intertwined with biodiversity are too often absent from decision-making spaces. Policies are drafted in Colombo, consultations, if they happen, are limited, and consent is rarely sought. This disconnect is not just a procedural flaw, it is a governance failure with real consequences.

A rights-based obligation

The global CBD framework guiding this moment, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), is explicit. It calls for the full, equitable, and inclusive representation and participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making processes related to biodiversity as well as to foster inclusive, participatory and rights-based approaches to biodiversity conservation.

Similarly, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). This is not a vague aspiration. It is a clear standard: communities must have the right to accept, reject, or shape decisions that affect their lands, resources, and livelihoods.

Sri Lanka has endorsed these commitments. The question now is whether it will implement them.

Why FPIC matters

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is often misunderstood as a bureaucratic step. In reality, it is the foundation of legitimate and effective conservation:

• Free: decisions made without coercion
• Prior: engagement before policies are finalized
• Informed: access to clear, accessible information
• Consent: the power to say yes, no, or negotiate

Without consent, conservation runs the risk to become exclusionary: Protected areas can restrict access to fishing grounds, forest conservation can limit livelihoods, climate and biodiversity protection projects can ignore or otherwise extract local knowledge without recognition or benefit-sharing.

On the other hand, with informed consent, the same interventions can become collaborative, sustainable, beneficial, just, and efficient

The risks of exclusion

If Sri Lanka continues on a path of limited participation, the consequences will extend far beyond reputational damage. Yes, there are challenges in each community area but failing to understand and address community consent can lead to: 

Policy Failure: 

Conservation policies designed without local input often fail in implementation. Communities resist, compliance weakens, and ecosystems remain vulnerable.

Economic Risk: 

Biodiversity governance is increasingly tied to international financing. Donors and multilateral agencies are aligning funding with rights-based safeguards. Failure to demonstrate inclusive governance could jeopardize access to climate and biodiversity finance.

Social Conflict: 

Exclusion breeds distrust. When communities are not part of decisions, conservation becomes a source of conflict rather than cooperation.

Loss of Knowledge: 

When traditional and local ecological knowledge – which are critical for resilience and sustainability – are sidelined or extracted without consent, conservation outcomes are weakened in the long-term..

A better path exists

Around the world, countries are demonstrating that rights-based biodiversity governance is not only possible, it is more effective.

Community-led forest management in Nepal has improved both biodiversity and livelihoods. Coastal co-management systems in the Philippines have strengthened fisheries and increased compliance. Across parts of Latin America, Indigenous-led conservation has delivered some of the most effective biodiversity protection in the world.

The lesson is consistent: conservation works best when power is shared. These models have a common principle: power is shared, not centralised.

What Sri Lanka must do now

If Sri Lanka is serious about its biodiversity commitments, several steps are urgent and achievable:

• Institutionalising FPIC is important when developing and adopting national guidelines, to ensure that adequate consultation and consent  are mandatory in all biodiversity-related decisions and reporting processes.
• Ensure transparent consultation, and publicly disclose who is consulted, how consultations are conducted, and how these inputs influence final decisions.
• Enable community participation in CBD Reporting, National reports and National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP). Updates must include documented and verifiable community inputs.
• Strengthen co-management or community-led management systems building on existing policies to give communities real decision-making authority, and not just advisory roles.
• Recognize and protect traditional and local Knowledge to ensure it is used with consent and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms.

An urgent moment

This is not a theoretical debate. Sri Lanka’s biodiversity is under pressure, from climate change, overexploitation, pollution and development pressure. Further, suitable recognition of climate-induced extreme weather events is desperately missing. At the same time, the country faces economic constraints that make inclusive, effective and sustainable governance more important than ever. .

Excluding communities is not only unjust, it is inefficient and unsustainable.

The path forward is clear. Conservation must move from control to collaboration, from consultation to consent, and from policy compliance to genuine accountability.

If Sri Lanka embraces this shift, it can become a model for rights-based biodiversity governance in South Asia. If it does not, it runs the risk of repeating a familiar pattern: strong commitments on paper, weak outcomes on the ground.

The message is simple, and it is urgent:

No conservation or land and coastal use change without consent.

Anita Perera is an Environmental Economist with over 5 years of professional 

experience in Economics, social sciences, and environmental economics, and is a Campaigner for Greenpeace South Asia 

------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication