• Fines increased; hazardous waste and chemical lifecycle brought under direct regulation
• Mandatory Strategic Environmental Assessments to integrate environment into policy planning
• Stronger EIA provisions, including legal action for false reporting and compulsory monitoring
• CEA to gain enhanced enforcement powers; certain offences made cognisable
• Extended Producer Responsibility to shift waste burden back to producers
• Major recruitment drive and technology upgrades to support implementation

Sri Lanka’s National Environmental Act, passed in Parliament in 1980, has long been criticised as outdated and toothless, a relic ill-equipped to handle the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

Amended only twice, in 1988 and 2000, the act has struggled to keep pace with a rapidly industrialising country grappling with plastic pollution, hazardous waste, river contamination, and the mounting pressures of climate change.

With a new act now awaiting implementation, the Central Environmental Authority (CEA), the monitoring body established in 1981 to enforce the original legislation, finds itself at a pivotal moment.

Its Chairman Prof. Tilak Hewawasam sat down with The Sunday Morning to discuss what changes under the new law, what structural weaknesses remain to be addressed, and why, after decades of legislative delay, this legislation carries consequences that reach far beyond the environment.

Following are excerpts:

The National Environmental Act has been in place since 1980, amended only twice in over four decades. What are its core deficiencies and how does the new act address them?

The environment is a very dynamic system, it changes. When we talk about the environment, we talk about the natural environment, but we can’t just stay there. We now have a built environment where people live, where there are factories. This environment gets polluted. The population is increasing, more industries are emerging, and the way pollutants act is changing. Technology is also advancing. Along with those changes, the act must be updated and revised, that is the essential need.

Take fines, for example. If someone destroys the environment or carries out projects without obtaining environmental clearance or licences, we file cases. We have banned single-use plastics, but they are still produced and sold openly. We conduct raids and file cases. Even so, the maximum fine under the old act is only Rs. 10,000. So, people do it again and again, because there is no real deterrent; it is simply cheaper to pay the fine and continue. Fines have been significantly increased in the new act. This was not done to inconvenience people, but to protect the environment. People should have a fear of the law, and we must implement it. That was a fundamental weakness of the old act.

What about hazardous waste and chemical management, areas where the old act had significant gaps?

We can classify waste into organic waste, e-waste, and hazardous waste. We didn’t have provisions directly in the old act to regulate hazardous waste. We still issued licences, but we were working around legislative gaps rather than within a clear framework. The new act directly mentions hazardous waste. We now have the provisions to licence, regulate, and control it properly.

On chemical management, Sri Lanka doesn’t produce many chemicals domestically, but we use them extensively in industries. Industrial chemicals are imported, stored somewhere, transported, and then used in production. After use, they generate waste. We had no provisions to regulate that entire process from beginning to end. The new act changes that comprehensively. 

We are creating a digital inventory database. When a chemical arrives in the country, the data is entered into the system. We can track where it is transported, where larger quantities are being stored, and if a chemical is approaching its expiry date, we can arrange for it to be redirected to another industry that can use it. We can manage the full chain from the point it arrives as a chemical to the point it becomes waste.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process has long been a point of contention between developers and environmentalists. How does the new act strengthen it?

The EIA is conducted at the initial stage, before a project begins. We look at the potential environmental impact and how significant it is. If the impacts are very significant, mitigation measures must be proposed by the project proponent. When they submit the report, we assess it and grant environmental clearance accordingly.

Under the new act, if a project proponent provides false information in that report, we can take direct legal action. That compels them to conduct a high-quality, honest study rather than submit reports designed merely to secure clearance and move on. Environmental monitoring is also made compulsory. A project has an initial stage, a construction phase, and an operational phase. Each of these phases impacts the environment differently. We assess all of that, not just the beginning. I always say we are not doing this to inconvenience developers, but to protect the environment. Development must happen, industries must exist, but we must ensure the environment is protected in the process.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a concept that is relatively new to Sri Lanka’s regulatory landscape. Could you elaborate on this? 

Usually in Sri Lanka, when Government agencies make plans or policies – a renewable energy programme, for instance, where decisions are being made about where to locate solar farms or wind installations – the environmental component is not considered at that planning stage. It is only examined at the individual project level, once decisions have already been made. But if we consider the environmental dimension earlier, at the policy or programme stage, the entire process becomes more efficient and more rational.

This is called Strategic Environmental Assessment. The new act makes SEA mandatory for Government agencies when formulating plans, policies, and programmes. After an SEA has been conducted, the project-level EIA process becomes faster because the project is already being developed in a suitable location. Problems are prevented before they begin, rather than being identified once a project is already underway and significant resources have been committed. That is a meaningful shift in how environmental governance will work in this country.

What about enforcement powers? The CEA has historically been limited in its ability to act directly against violators.

Yes, the judicial process becomes considerably easier under the new act. Previously, when we conducted raids on plastics manufacturers and sellers, we usually had to operate alongside the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA); we could not act independently. Now we are granted stronger direct legal provisions. Certain offences have been designated as cognisable offences, meaning arrests can be made without a warrant. These include water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, and vibration pollution.

We haven’t fully developed the enforcement process yet, because CEA officers are not trained or equipped to function like Police officers. We are currently in discussions with the Police on how to delegate this power effectively. The model we are exploring is one where our officers conduct the inspection and identify the violation, and the Police carries out the arrest. 

Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) officers, for instance, have uniforms and enforcement powers, but our officers don’t operate that way. However, the act now gives us legal authority. Think of this act as an umbrella that covers everything; we will then develop the specific regulations under it to make it operational on the ground.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is another significant introduction. Can you explain what that means in practice for Sri Lankan industries?

In simple terms, suppose a beverage company puts 10 bottles into the market. After consumers use them, the plastic is discarded. Currently, the responsibility for managing that waste falls on the Government or local authorities. The producer walks away. Under EPR, the responsibility is returned to the producer. They are accountable for the entire life cycle of that material. They must have a mechanism to collect those bottles back, perhaps by empowering waste collectors, providing them with equipment or vehicles, and ensuring the bottles reach recycling centres.

We talk about a circular economy. In the conventional model, we extract a raw material, manufacture a product, use it, and discard it as waste. But in a circular economy, that waste is recycled back into the production system. From an environmental standpoint, waste ceases to exist as a problem, instead it becomes a resource. This also contributes significantly to reducing natural resource depletion, particularly of minerals, which is one of our most serious environmental challenges.

We have already developed regulations for PET bottles under EPR and are waiting for the new act to be passed before implementing them. Once it is in place, we will be able to require companies, including large multinationals, to recover a specified percentage of the bottles they put into the market, whether that is 50% or 100%. We have already developed a database for this. We can track how much plastic a company imports and whether it has met its recovery obligations. This same framework can be extended to e-waste and tyres as well, although those regulations are still being developed.

The new act gives the CEA significant powers, but the authority has faced serious staffing shortfalls. How do you address that gap?

When I took over as Chairman approximately a year and a half ago, the staffing situation was a serious problem. For nine consecutive years, not a single environmental officer had been recruited to the CEA. We have around 580 environmental officers and approximately 230 senior environmental managers in the permanent cadre, graduates who have moved up through experience, but there had been a complete freeze on new recruitment for the State sector during that period.

We are now recruiting 281 environmental officers at once. Approximately 15,000 people applied for those positions. We will give them intensive training, because environmental management is a technical field that must keep pace with advancing technology. Human resource development is not optional – it is central to whether this new act can be implemented effectively or remains on paper.

On the technology side, we are working on a Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)-funded project for the Kelani River, which has identified main pollution points. If those are not controlled, the water cannot even be adequately purified for drinking. Currently, we manually collect samples and send them for analysis, which is a slow and reactive process. This project will install automated data sensors along the river for continuous, real-time monitoring. We will be able to identify pollution hotspots directly from our offices and respond immediately. The project is valued more than Rs. 600 million.

Beyond the Kelani River, we are using satellite imagery, Geographic Information Systems, and drone cameras to study wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas that are difficult to access on the ground. We are also digitising the entire Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) process, which is currently entirely manual, where people must come in person, make payments, and wait for physical inspections. We have already moved payments online, and by the end of this year, we hope to have a full online system in trial operation. This will significantly reduce paperwork and make the process more accessible for both the public and our own officers.

There are concerns among environmentalists that smaller renewable energy projects are bypassing rigorous scrutiny through the shorter Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) process rather than a full EIA. Is that criticism valid?

For renewable energy projects, a full EIA is decided at the scoping stage considering its magnitude, sensitivity of the area, and social concerns. Below that threshold, projects go through our environmental recommendations process. But that does not mean there is no scrutiny – that is a misconception. We do provide recommendations, and where we judge it necessary, we can require an IEE even for smaller projects.

For example, we recently assessed a floating solar project. It was small, around 5 MW. Because the water body is used as a drinking water source and supports fish populations, we recommended an IEE. We must maintain a balance, and we exercise judgement rather than simply applying thresholds mechanically.

On the Hambantota solar projects, the Project Approving Agency recently rejected an application through the EIA process because the proposed site was located within a high elephant roaming area. That decision was not taken lightly, given the country’s renewable energy targets. We want to reach 70% renewable energy by 2030, and we are committed to supporting that goal. 

But we must also consider where and how that energy infrastructure is placed. Personally, I believe we should be looking much more seriously at placing solar panels over roads and highways, or as floating installations on large reservoirs. This avoids land-use conflicts, elephant corridors, and the displacement of communities, all of which become problems when we simply clear land for solar farms.

The tension between development and conservation is one the CEA navigates constantly. How do you define the authority’s role and how does independence factor into that?

Conservation agencies, such as the DWC, are focused primarily on conservation, since that is their mandate. But we cannot conserve everything; people have needs and aspirations for a higher quality of life. We need industries, we need development, we need infrastructure. I see the CEA’s role not as a conservation body, but as an environmental management body. The distinction matters.

What we need is sustainable development, development that is mindful of the future, so that the next generation can also enjoy the environment and its resources. The EIA is the primary tool for achieving that balance. It is not a hurdle designed to obstruct projects; it is a mechanism for ensuring that development and environmental protection can coexist. The same is true of the SEA at the policy level. Both tools are about making better decisions earlier, not about blocking progress.

The new act, at its core, is designed to give us the legal architecture to do that job properly, with stronger penalties, clearer mandates, better technology, and greater accountability across the board. Whether it delivers on that promise will depend on implementation. And that, ultimately, is our responsibility.

The Ambuluwawa Biodiversity Complex has drawn considerable criticism from environmentalists over its environmental impact. The CEA granted clearance for that project. How do you respond to those concerns?

We did grant environmental clearance for Ambuluwawa. The recent environmental concerns centred on land use and the risk of landslides, and those were the critical issues that needed to be addressed. The decision to grant approval was based on the technical studies covered in the IEE report and the proposed mitigation measures to ensure land stability. That clearance was also issued on the basis of technical recommendations from the National Building Research Organisation (NBRO), whose experts assessed the site and determined that the project could be safely implemented, provided that the proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented. We based our decision on that strong technical foundation.

The Norochcholai coal power plant is at the centre of significant environmental controversy due to the issue of substandard coal, particularly regarding air and ash pollution. Why has the CEA been largely silent on that front?

The CEA generally does not intervene in matters concerning Norochcholai, and there is a specific legal reason for that. Under a separate statute, the North Western Province has established its own Provincial Environmental Authority, which holds exclusive jurisdiction within the province. The CEA’s powers do not extend there. 

It is the Provincial Environmental Authority that is responsible for issuing the EPL for the Norochcholai coal power plant and for monitoring its ongoing environmental compliance. That is not an abdication of responsibility; it is a jurisdictional reality defined by law. The accountability lies with the provincial body, and that is where questions about Norochcholai’s environmental impact should properly be directed.

However, as the national authority for environmental protection, we have also been assessing the air quality around the power plant. If the air quality exceeds national standards, we will take immediate action to address the issue.

The Karadiyana garbage dump fire caused significant public alarm recently and raised questions about whether the CEA was doing enough. What was the authority’s role during and after that incident?

The CEA acts strictly as a regulatory body in relation to Karadiyana; the site itself is managed by a separate authority. During the fire, we deployed specialised air pollution monitoring equipment and maintained continuous oversight of air quality levels. We remained on alert and were prepared to coordinate public evacuations had the situation deteriorated further.

We have the power to file legal action for mismanagement of the site. However, we made a deliberate decision to prioritise discussion and the development of a management plan with the relevant authorities, rather than move immediately to litigation. Waste management is a critical national problem; it is not one institution’s failure, it is a systemic one.

Filing only a lawsuit does not solve the underlying crisis. What is needed is a workable plan, and that requires dialogue.

What I want to emphasise is the broader principle at stake here, what we call the Polluter Pays Principle. People tend to think waste is someone else’s problem, that it is the Government’s problem. It is not. Every individual, every producer, every institution generates waste and must take responsibility for it. Karadiyana is a symptom of what happens when that responsibility is collectively avoided for too long.

Lack of inter-agency coordination is a criticism frequently levelled at Government institutions. How does the CEA manage coordination on environmental matters, given how many agencies are involved?

Within the environment sector, I think coordination is actually functioning reasonably well. We have 11 agencies under the Ministry of Environment, and in most of our meetings, we discuss our processes together. Whether it is the Forest Department or the DWC, we sit together at the same table. We are all agencies under one Minister and one Secretary, so that coordination naturally takes place at the institutional level. 

Beyond those regular meetings, for processes such as granting environmental clearance, we mandatorily bring all relevant agencies together before a decision is made. At a meeting held on Thursday (30 April), approximately 15 different agencies participated. We examine every stakeholder’s concerns before we move forward. That is not a formality; it is how we ensure that no single agency’s blind spot becomes an environmental failure down the line.