• False or misleading information in EIA reports now a punishable offence
• Study of 250 EIAs exposes serious weaknesses in social impact assessments
• Uma Oya and Mattala highlight human, environmental cost of flawed assessments
• Strategic Environmental Assessments introduced to bring scrutiny into early planning
• Conflicts of interest in EIA process remain unresolved, environmentalists warn
• Public participation, access to project information continue to raise concerns
• Experts say stronger law will mean little without staff, expertise, effective enforcement 

More than 7,000 families living around the Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project have spent the better part of a decade watching their homes crack and their wells run dry.

The project’s preliminary studies had been rejected by the Asian Development Bank over adverse impacts before it was pushed forward regardless. The result was a nine-year delay, an additional $ 39 million in costs, and a scale of structural and socio-economic damage to surrounding communities that no environmental safeguard was able to prevent.

It is against this backdrop – of projects approved on the strength of assessments that later proved inadequate, misleading, or simply wrong – that Sri Lanka has passed the National Environmental (Amendment) Act No.15 of 2026, the first major overhaul of the country’s primary environmental law in decades.

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne signed the bill, bringing it into force with effect from 21 July.

At the centre of the reform is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, the mechanism meant to weigh development against its cost to the natural world and the people living closest to it, and one that a growing body of evidence suggests has failed, repeatedly and in similar ways, for decades.

What the new act changes

The most significant shift is legal rather than procedural: for the first time, submitting misleading, false, or inaccurate information in an EIA or Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) report is explicitly classified as a punishable offence.

Under the previous framework, report writers faced minimal legal accountability when data was manipulated to fast-track approvals. The new law introduces strict liability and heavier fines for both project proponents and the consultants who prepare their reports, replacing a maximum fine of Rs. 10,000 that had remained unchanged even as the scale of the projects it was meant to deter grew immeasurably larger.

The act also introduces Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), mandating environmental review at the level of macro-policy, plans, and regional programmes rather than only at the level of individual projects. Previously, EIAs were conducted piecemeal, after decisions on location and scope had already been finalised. SEAs are intended to force environmental considerations into the planning stage itself, before land is earmarked or budgets committed.

Central Environmental Authority (CEA) Chairman Prof. Tilak Hewawasam described the shift as a structural one. 

“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,” he opined.

“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.” 

On the question of enforcement, Prof. Hewawasam was direct about what the criminalisation of false reporting is meant to achieve. 

“Under the new act, if a project proponent provides false information in that report, we can take direct legal action. This compels them to conduct a high-quality, honest study rather than submit reports designed merely to secure clearance and move on,” he said. 

He also pointed to compulsory environmental monitoring across a project’s full lifecycle rather than only at approval stage. “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 it, not just the beginning.” 

Prof. Hewawasam also acknowledged that the law’s success would ultimately rest on implementation rather than text. Citing a recent case in which the CEA had required an IEE for a small 5 MW floating solar project because the water body in question was used as a drinking water source, he said that the authority continued to exercise judgement beyond fixed thresholds.

He also pointed to a Hambantota solar project rejected by a Project Approving Agency (PAA) because the proposed site had fallen within a high elephant-roaming area, despite national renewable energy targets. “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,” he said.

“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,” he said.

The act also tightens rules around who can act as a PAA, addressing a long-standing conflict of interest in which line ministries have historically approved projects they were simultaneously promoting.

Prof. Hewawasam added that environmental monitoring would also become compulsory throughout a project’s different stages, rather than ending once initial approval was granted.

“A project has a planning stage, a construction phase, and an operational phase, and the environmental impacts can be different at each stage. We have to identify those impacts and ensure the necessary mitigation measures are implemented. The purpose is not to inconvenience developers. Development and industries are necessary, but they must proceed while protecting the environment,” he said.

However, he noted that project-level EIAs had inherent limitations because certain environmental problems may only become apparent when a development proposal had already advanced considerably. By that stage, some impacts may be difficult or impossible to mitigate, potentially leaving both the environment and the project proponent at a disadvantage.

Prof. Hewawasam said that SEAs could address this problem by assessing environmental opportunities and constraints at a much earlier stage and on a broader policy, sectoral, or regional scale.

For example, if renewable energy development involving wind and solar power is being considered across the Northern Province, an SEA could assess the region’s overall development potential, resource requirements, and environmental constraints before individual projects are proposed.

“Through an SEA, we can identify in advance which areas have development potential and what environmental limitations exist. Then, when an investor comes forward, there is already a broader understanding of where development can take place and under what conditions. That makes the process easier for investors as well,” he said.

Prof. Hewawasam stressed that EIAs and SEAs therefore served complementary purposes, with strategic assessments helping guide development at an early stage and project-level assessments examining the specific environmental impacts and mitigation requirements of individual developments.

A pattern of costly failures

The case for reform is not abstract. Beyond Uma Oya, the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA) – frequently cited as a white elephant project – was sited in a way that significantly increased human-elephant conflict in the surrounding area, resulting in deaths, injuries, and property damage severe enough that a dedicated wildlife office had to be established within the airport premises itself.

These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a systemic problem, according to a January 2026 report by the Centre for a Smart Future, titled ‘Assessing the Assessments: An Analysis of Social Impacts Reported in EIAs in Sri Lanka,’ authored by researcher Senith Abeyanayake.

The study analysed 250 EIA reports published between 1991 and 2025 across all 25 districts, using what it terms a “minimum-threshold approach” – marking a report compliant if it met a given requirement even once, effectively setting a low bar for quality. 

Even against that low bar, the findings were stark: 45% of reports offered no explanation of the methodology used to identify social impacts at all; 52% failed to classify impacts by magnitude, reversibility, or temporality; and 85% failed to disclose any study limitations or assumptions. Only 10% of reports cited existing analytical socio-economic literature, with the remainder relying on simple descriptive statistics from administrative databases.

The report also found that reports have grown less accessible even as they have grown longer. CEA guidelines recommend a 100-page limit, yet many current reports exceed 500 pages, with executive summaries – the primary point of public contact – becoming markedly harder to read over time by standard readability measures.

When safeguards become prejudice

Perhaps the report’s most troubling findings concern how EIAs have, in places, characterised the communities they are meant to protect. Abeyanayake documents multiple instances of what he characterises as hostile or unsubstantiated language directed at rural and low-income communities.

An EIA for a solar salt manufacturing project claimed, without empirical basis, that incoming workers could lead villagers to consume alcohol and drugs, further asserting that “the danger of adultery, rape, and child abuse can raise its ugly head”.

A 1998 EIA for the diversion of Mau Ara to the Malala Oya Basin described local communities as exhibiting “possessive tendencies, aggression, and the disdain for the law”. In an EIA for the Mirijjawila Industrial Zone, the formation of trade unions was described as a “serious threat to the smooth functioning of investment projects”.

The report also identified widespread copy-paste reporting, in which consultants reused identical impact language across projects of vastly different scale and context; the same description of migratory-worker impacts appeared, largely unchanged, in five separate EIA reports across four districts over nine years, despite labour requirements ranging from 57 to 300 workers on those projects. 

Separately, the report found that some EIA annexures disclosed respondents’ full names, addresses, incomes, and National Identity Card numbers, along with the value of land they owned and whether they were agreeable to the project – a practice that raises questions under the Personal Data Protection Act.

What environmentalists still fear

Despite the reforms, several environmental lawyers and activists said that the act left significant gaps unaddressed. 

Senior environmental lawyer and Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) Director Dr. Ravindranath Dabare said that the new act signed by the Speaker had broadened its scope, particularly with the introduction of SEAs, which he called a positive step forward. However, he said a major loophole remained: the discretion to decide whether a project requires a full EIA or only a minor IEE stays with the PAA itself.

“Often, agencies perform a cursory investigation to bypass a full EIA,” he said. “While increasing fines is a good change, the PAA is still the body that decides if the information provided by a project proponent is accurate. The public often has no way of knowing what data was submitted or whether it is false.” 

Dr. Dabare noted that the authority to grant these approvals depended on location: the Coast Conservation Department handles coastal areas, the Department of Wildlife Conservation handles wildlife regions, and the CEA handles most other areas.

The CEJ Director also pointed to a gap in how communities were informed. “The issue isn’t necessarily the length of the public comment period, but the failure of Government agencies to effectively inform the public. Often, communities only realise a project is happening when heavy machinery arrives on site, by which time the ‘public comment’ phase has already been closed,” he said.

He drew a further distinction between the two instruments now written into law. “It is important to understand the difference in scope: an EIA focuses narrowly on a specific project and its immediate site, whereas an SEA involves a deep study of the entire region and its broader environmental conditions,” he said. 

“Ultimately, regardless of how much the legal scope is widened, the act will fail if the relevant agencies do not increase their staff capacity and technical expertise. Without improved capacity, the expanded powers in the act cannot be successfully implemented.” 

To address the staff shortage, the CEA officially advanced its latest recruitment drive, marking a significant milestone for environmental governance in Sri Lanka. On 17 July, the authority published the official list of candidates qualified for the interview stage for the position of Environmental Officer (Grade III).

Environmental activist Melani Gunathilaka raised a different set of concerns, chief among them that the party responsible for hiring and paying EIA consultants remained the same party proposing the project – a conflict of interest environmental organisations had proposed resolving through a Government-vetted pool of independent experts, a recommendation not reflected in the final act. 

“While the act mentions consultation with the community, it does not explicitly require community approval or follow the principle of free, prior, and informed consent,” she said.

She also noted that SEAs, while newly introduced, were not mandatory under the act’s current wording, which states only that they “should be considered”. Gunathilaka further pointed to the absence of any provision addressing how environmental change affected women, indigenous groups, or marginalised communities specifically, and to the lack of a proportionate penalty structure. 

“A single mother from a village would face the same penalty as a large-scale corporation for an unauthorised entry into a protected zone,” she said.

How the EIA approval process works

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval in Sri Lanka is governed by the National Environmental Act (NEA), with projects that fall within prescribed categories required to undergo an environmental assessment before proceeding.

The process begins with the project proponent submitting preliminary information on the proposed development, including its location, nature, and potential environmental impacts, to the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) or the relevant Project Approving Agency (PAA).

Based on this information, authorities determine whether the project requires a full EIA or an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE). If an assessment is required, the relevant PAA conducts a scoping process to identify the key environmental issues that must be examined and issues Terms of Reference (TOR) for the preparation of the report.

The responsibility for preparing the EIA or IEE rests with the project proponent, who is expected to engage relevant experts and prepare the assessment in accordance with the TOR.

Once submitted, the report is evaluated by the relevant authorities. Full EIA reports are also made available for public inspection and comments for a mandatory period of 30 working days, allowing affected communities and other interested parties to raise concerns over the proposed project.

Following the public consultation and technical evaluation, the PAA may approve the project subject to conditions or reject it, providing reasons for its decision. Approved projects are subsequently subject to monitoring to ensure compliance with the stipulated environmental conditions.

Depending on the location and nature of a project, agencies other than the CEA may play a key role in the approval process. For developments within environmentally sensitive areas, including coastal zones and areas falling under wildlife protection, the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department or the Department of Wildlife Conservation may be involved as the relevant approving authority.

While an EIA focuses on the potential environmental impacts of a specific development project, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) operates at a broader level.

An SEA examines the potential cumulative environmental implications of policies, national strategies, master plans, and regional programmes before they are finalised. This allows environmental considerations to be incorporated at the planning and policy-making stage, rather than assessing impacts only after individual projects have been proposed.

In Sri Lanka, the SEA process is overseen by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Unit of the CEA.