• How Sri Lanka’s human-elephant crisis risks derailing hopes of rural poverty eradication

When Sri Lanka’s National People’s Power Government assumed office under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, it did so on the promise of transformative change. Among the most resonant pledges was the commitment to eradicate rural poverty, a goal that, in a nation where farming remains a primary livelihood, offered hope to millions.

Yet today, many environmentalists and community members are asking: Can rural poverty truly be eliminated if government policy fuels, rather than mitigates, Sri Lanka’s escalating human-elephant conflict?

At the heart of this dilemma is the tension between political expediency and scientific evidence. Despite repeated calls by environmentalists, scientists, and rural communities for an evidence-based strategy to manage human-elephant conflict, the Government’s current approach, which relies on previous measures often deemed a failure, threatens to deepen rural suffering, waste public resources, and endanger one of the most intelligent and emotionally complex species on earth: The Asian elephant.

A crisis in the countryside

The human-elephant conflict is not a new issue in Sri Lanka, but it has grown in intensity and geographic spread over the past few decades. As of 2020, incidents were reported across 19 districts, eight provinces, and 131 divisional secretariats. In February, Environment Minister Dr. Dammika Patabendi presented figures in Parliament, saying that in the past nine years, 3,477 wild elephant fatalities have been reported. During this period, 1,190 human fatalities were reported due to wild elephant attacks.

The toll is stark: Sri Lanka records the highest annual elephant deaths and the second-highest human fatalities globally due to these encounters. For rural communities, whose fields and homes lie on the frontlines of this conflict, each night can bring destruction or death.

The scale and complexity of Sri Lanka’s human-elephant conflict is echoed across much of Asia and Africa, but in Sri Lanka it has reached what experts call ‘a very acute stage’. As reported by the Cambridge University Press, this intensifying conflict is driven by multiple, overlapping pressures: Habitat destruction caused by illegal human encroachments and settlements, interruption of elephant corridors, and scarcity of food and water in national parks.

As rapid economic development and decades of civil conflict forced elephants to shift from traditional habitats in the north and east, many found themselves with no choice but to raid farmlands, bringing them into direct conflict with rural communities. As the Cambridge study notes: “Human-elephant conflicts are created in the interaction between the forest environment and people’s actions such as encroachment and land claims.” Without science-based management of both wildlife corridors and rural development, the cycle of destruction and retaliation continues, threatening both livelihoods and the survival of the species.

A noted environmentalist and former member of the Presidential Committee on Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Supun Lahiru Prakash warned that the Government’s recent moves reflected “a fundamental lack of understanding of elephant behaviour, the root causes of the conflict, and the effectiveness, or more accurately, the ineffectiveness, of the methods being employed.”

Speaking to The Daily Morning Brunch, Prakash explained: “Elephant drives, translocations, and confinement attempts have failed for 65 years. Yet, we are pouring public funds into these same failed measures. The result is not poverty alleviation but the deepening of rural distress and the needless loss of both human and elephant lives.”

Failed solutions, repeated

Since taking office, the Government has revived elephant drives, mass operations that aim to push elephants into designated parks using hundreds of personnel, firecrackers, rubber bullets, and other stress-inducing tactics. We were told that the most recent drives, in districts such as Anuradhapura, Puttalam, and Polonnaruwa, have not only failed to relocate elephants but have also escalated crop damage, property destruction, and human casualties.

Department of Wildlife Conservation Acting Director General Ranjan Marasinghe shared the department’s position: “We are under immense pressure to act quickly when human lives and property are at risk. While elephant drives are not our preferred long-term solution, they are sometimes seen as necessary in emergency situations. But we do not carry them out on a very large scale, we just do what is necessary. Although we also agree that more sustainable, science-based methods like those in the National Action Plan for the Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict might be better, we must do what’s most practical.”

Forest Department Deputy Conservator Nishantha Edirisinghe criticised this approach, saying: “These drives traumatise elephants, making them more aggressive towards humans. They’re intelligent creatures. When subjected to violence, they respond with fear and hostility. It’s tragic because it makes coexistence harder and turns a management issue into a crisis.”

Drives are not just ineffective, they are costly. Public funds are spent on personnel salaries, equipment, explosives, ammunition, drones, and logistics. Meanwhile, rural communities are left to face the fallout: Enraged elephants that return to raid fields and homes with even greater intensity.

The forgotten plan

As Prakash observed, what makes the Government’s reliance on outdated methods even more perplexing is the existence of a well-researched, science-backed alternative: The National Action Plan for the Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict. Developed in 2020 by a Presidential Committee of wildlife experts, State officials, and district representatives, the action plan advocated abandoning translocations and drives in favour of community-led solutions. These include permanent village electric fencing and seasonal agricultural fencing, methods that have been shown to reduce both elephant and human fatalities.

Centre for Conservation and Research Chair, Trustee, and Scientist Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando, who chaired the committee that drafted the plan, stated: “This was a national-level plan that combined scientific research with local knowledge. It was designed to be practical and cost-effective. What’s disappointing is that after all that work, we see the same failed tactics being repeated, and the plan left largely unimplemented.”

Under the previous administration, partial implementation of this plan, particularly the community-based paddy field electric fencing spearheaded by the Department of Agrarian Development, led to Sri Lanka’s first decline in elephant and human deaths in nine years. However, with the change in government, the momentum stalled.

“Community fencing and local involvement work. The action plan was clear on this. Continuing with elephant drives just creates more conflict, both for people and elephants,” Dr. Fernando added.

“It’s as if we’re determined to ignore our own successes,” remarked Kurunegala District Secretary D. Dissanayake. “We saw what worked: Community engagement, smart fencing, localised solutions. Yet, we keep returning to failed tactics, driven by politics rather than science.”

Politics over science

The human-elephant conflict’s politicisation was highlighted. “Decisions on wildlife management have come not from the Ministry of Environment but from politicians holding unrelated portfolios: Deputy Ministers of Agriculture, Public Security, and Local Government,” Dissanayake pointed out.

Environmentalists argue that these political interventions undermine the authority of experts and derail coherent policy. As Prakash put it: “If politicians want to lead this effort, they must do so from a place of knowledge, not guesswork. What we’re seeing is a dangerous mix of arrogance and ignorance.”

For rural farmers and families, these missteps translate into daily hardship. Every failed drive means more nights guarding fields, more destroyed harvests, and more fear. With agriculture already threatened by erratic weather and economic pressures, human-elephant conflict has become a breaking point for many.

Ironically, the very communities the Government aims to lift out of poverty through agricultural revitalisation are those most endangered by misguided wildlife policies. As Dissanayake noted: “You can’t talk of eradicating rural poverty while making it impossible for farmers to protect their crops. Livelihoods are at stake.”

Call for change

The path forward, experts insist, is clear. Full implementation of the National Action Plan, with adequate funding and political backing, offers the best chance of sustainably reducing human-elephant conflict. This means empowering local communities, using science to guide decisions, and ending the reliance on methods that history has shown to be futile.

Edirisinghe summed it up: “The solutions are in front of us. What’s missing is the political will to put science above short-term politics. Until that happens, both people and elephants will continue to suffer.”

The stakes could not be higher. As the Government pursues its goal of rural poverty eradication, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: Fuelling the flames of human-elephant conflict will only push vulnerable communities deeper into poverty, while pushing elephants closer to extinction.

If the Government truly seeks transformative change, it must rethink its approach, starting with halting elephant drives and translocations, investing in community-based fencing, and restoring decision-making to wildlife experts.

Only through science-driven, inclusive, and compassionate policies can Sri Lanka hope to build a future where farmers thrive, elephants roam safely, and rural poverty is not just addressed, but genuinely eradicated.