In 2024, 386 elephants and 154 people died due to the Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC). This is a serious and growing crisis. A recent map (Figure 1) showing locations of human fatalities from elephant attacks between 2019 and 2021 reveals the widespread impact across the country's dry zone. (The map was developed based on a study carried out in 2023 by an expert group led by Thaksila D. Gunawansa.)
More than 70% of the country's elephant population, estimated at 5,500 to 6,000, live outside the Protected Areas (PAs), covering 62% of Sri Lanka's land area. This overlap with human settlements fuels the ongoing conflict. PAs are Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC)-managed forest areas reserved for elephants and other wild animals.
The conflict has been reported in 19 districts and 131 Divisional Secretariats across Sri Lanka.
The deaths of 25 elephants in recent weeks due to gunshots and illegal electric fences point to the failure of the current measures in protecting both the humans and elephants. Conservationists warn the problem is escalating, calling for a new, effective solution to mitigate the HEC.
Need for wildlife corridors linking large forest areas
A key factor often overlooked in mitigating HEC is the protection of traditional forest corridors used by elephants. Many such corridors have been encroached upon and blocked for illegal agricultural activities.
During the 1980s, the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Programme established large agricultural systems (H, B, and C) without preserving clear elephant corridors. Figure 1 highlights how most human fatalities have occurred along these disrupted corridors.
Current mitigating measures
A map of protected areas in the lower Mahaweli basin highlights forests, parks, corridors, and water bodies crucial for maintaining this balance and mitigating HEC.
At present the carrying capacity of existing PAs has reached its maximum and is not able to accommodate additional elephants. As such, the only option left is to increase the carrying capacity of existing PAs along with clearing of obstructions across most existing internal corridors connecting water sources.
Need to increase "carrying capacity" of forest areas
The large elephant gatherings, 300-400 inside the Minneriya and Kaudulla National Parks, could be seen during the dry season. This attraction is due to the grasslands that emerge as tank waters recede. Similar dynamics occur around other major tanks within the Mahaweli reserves. Additionally, the Mahaweli lower floodplain forest reserve boasts rich biodiversity, further benefiting elephants.
In contrast, the Wilpattu forest reserve, the largest mature forest reserve with about 132,000 hectares, has a much lower number of elephants due to the non-availability of large water bodies and grasslands as food for elephants. Further, it now has a mature forest with a large canopy but not providing adequate food for elephants. The natural villus in the forest area also dry up during the dry season, making elephants move out from the Wilpattu forest reserve to nearby villages.
This shows that increasing the carrying capacity of forest areas is a solution to mitigate HEC to a manageable level. This requires development of water resources and establishment of grassland with appropriate physical interventions to convert part of these forest reserves as a home for elephants.
Need for a new approach to mitigate HEC
The efforts made in the past 50 years to mitigate HEC in Sri Lanka have largely provided only a temporary relief, such as protection of agricultural villages through permanent fencing and paddy areas through seasonal fencing.
Due to the lack of food inside the PAs, elephants venture out in search of food and water. The most important factor is the food, with one elephant requiring about 300 kg of fodder a day. Water is the secondary factor, as they could survive with little water for a few days. However, it is not possible to generate food for elephants and other animals inside the PAs without water. As such, the primary requirement to increase food inside the PAs is the development of water resources inside the PAs. While the 2020 Action Plan's co-existence model may work for isolated villages, it is insufficient as a nationwide solution.
Instead, the focus must be on improving elephant conservation by enhancing biodiversity and water resources within PAs to keep elephants away from human settlements. To date, little focus has been placed on improving biodiversity within PAs, highlighting the urgent need for a new, innovative approach to manage the conflict effectively.
Taking consideration of the measures taken so far, the best way to reduce HEC in Sri Lanka is to increase the carrying capacity of PAs combined with fencing along their ecological boundaries.
As a short-term measure, elephants could be provided with food and water at secure locations inside PAs under a well-developed and coordinated plan. The food for elephants could be purchased from nearby communities at nominal cost, benefiting those affected by HEC. This measure is required to increase the carrying capacity to accommodate elephants now roaming outside the PAs.
Thus, there is an urgent need for a new approach in the form of a project to reduce HEC to manageable levels. A combination of hard engineering solutions and community-friendly measures is needed to effectively tackle the issue.
A long-term measure is to divide PAs and adjacent forest areas in the dry zone into Elephant Managed Ranges (EMRs) based on their ecological boundaries. This division aims to streamline the management and implementation of HEC mitigation efforts.
According to the country's water resource development plan, Sri Lanka's forest areas could be divided into seven EMRs, as illustrated in the proposed layout plan.
This measure will help implement site-specific development plans for habitat enrichment with possible water resources, planning and development inside each EMR. Further, these EMRs could be transformed into tourist attractions, benefiting local communities by giving them a source of income to support development and maintenance of the specific physical interventions required.
The proposed mitigation project
The Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), together with the Forest Department (FD), Irrigation Department (ID), Divisional Secretariats, and local communities, could lead the implementation of the proposed Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Project.
The project will roll out in three stages:
1. Stage 1: Initial mapping and project formulation to secure consensus among all stakeholders.
2. Stage 2: Development of water sources and biodiversity enrichment within the Elephant Managed Ranges (EMRs).
3. Stage 3: Final boundary demarcation and installation of electric fencing, along with improved road access and long-term management systems.
Stages 2 and 3 could proceed concurrently with the final enclosure of each EMR with electric fencing, and till such time, the existing mitigation measures need to be carried out with suitable modifications.
It is estimated that about five to seven years are required to implement this project with an estimated cost of USD 250 million. It may be possible to get grant assistance from global funding agencies like the Green Climate Fund and other climate change mitigation funds with the submission of a well-designed and formulated project proposal with the support of development agencies like the UNDP.
Some experts argue that the government is not in a position to invest funds to mitigate the present HEC. However, in the long term, mitigation of the HEC will benefit the large farming community in the dry zone of Sri Lanka and will benefit ecotourism in the area with considerable economic benefits to the country as a whole. This needs to be verified by the engagement of an independent team of experts to assess the cost-benefit analysis, taking into account proposed physical interventions and yearly operation and maintenance costs of the mitigation measures.
To implement urgent interventions, the government could establish a local fund named "Protection of Elephants in Sri Lanka" financed by contributions from local banks and a tourist levy at major national parks such as Yala, Minneriya, and Wasgamuwa and the proposed EMRs.