15 August 2024 12:00 am Views - 963
Wildlife officers treating an injured elephant
|
Wildlife Officers categorised under the Management Service (MN) complain that they are facing significant injustice
|
|
A session in progress where wildlife officers are being briefed of an assignment |
Fauna in Sri Lanka; for the prevention of commercial and other misuse of such Flora and Fauna and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The promotion and salary categories for Wildlife Officers engaged in these services have been outlined as per the Public Administration Circular No. 06/2006. According to the 2006 budget proposals, there has been a restructuring of salaries in the government service as per this circular. D. Dissanayake, Secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, communicated this in letter No. B 5/1/26 to all Ministry Secretaries, Provincial Council Chief Secretaries, and Department Heads, with the document bearing his signature. However, Wildlife Officers pointed out that they aren’t receiving the promotions or the salaries that were indicated according to Circular No. 06/2006. Wildlife Officers are categorised under the Management Service (MN) as per the circular. Despite being assigned to this category and fulfilling their duties, the officials added that they are facing significant injustice. The Wildlife Officers believe that this injustice stems from the common definitions provided by the Public Service Commission and the Pay Commission, which classified them under the management category.
According to Circular No. 06/2006, single-function officers are classified under MN1 within the management assistant - technical category, which includes roles such as receptionist or telephone operator. Wildlife guard officers have also been grouped into this category. However, wildlife guard officers don’t restrict themselves to perform a single duty; they carry out multiple functions, including participation in judicial processes, conducting raids, guiding tourists, managing offices, overseeing wildlife health and issuing permits. Therefore, wildlife guard officer should be classified as management assistants (MN 2). However, before the implementation of Circular No. 06/2006, wildlife guard officers were established under the MN2 category.
Discrepancy in the salaries
|
Wildlife officers engaged in releasing a captured crocodile into the wild |
However, after the implementation of Circular No. 06/2006, clerks and storekeepers were added to the MN2 category within the management assistant service; placing them in the same salary category. Wildlife guard officers believe that they were placed under the MN1 category because they aren’t included in the MN2 category. Before the enactment of Circular No. 06/2006, recruitment for MN2 positions in other government institutions required a minimum of six subjects passed with four C passes in the GCE O/L to meet the preliminary requirements of the government recruitment process. At that time, it was suggested that Wildlife Guards should pass six subjects, including four C passes in Mathematics and Science, to be eligible for recruitment. After Circular No. 06/2006 was enacted, other government institutions were recommended to recruit candidates with two passes at the Advanced Level Examination. For Wildlife Guard Officers, the qualification needed for recruitment was one pass at one Advanced Level Examination. These recruitments were done accordingly. Wildlife Officers believe that there is a discrepancy in the salaries of these officers, whose basic salary has been set according to Circular No. 03/2016.
Wildlife range assistants have been recruited since 1989 from the GCE Advanced Level Examination Science stream. However, according to Circular No. 06/2006, this position has been classified under MN1 ii grade without being properly established as a distinct post. The role should remain as Assistant Supervisory Manager, as Wildlife range assistants supervise and perform administration work as divisional wildlife offices. This position should be placed under MN3, yet Wildlife Assistants Managers are currently classified under MN1 ii grade.
|
The Animal (Amendment) Act which has been subject to several amendments over the years |
Additionally, the Ranger position should be classified under the MN5 category. A ranger monitors at least three Divisional Secretariats within a Wildlife Reserve, with a maximum of five Divisional Secretariats being monitored individually. In the case of a national park, they administer over one-fifth of a district. They are empowered by the Fauna and Flora Ordinance and come under the direct supervision of the Director General and Executive Officers. This role involves significant responsibilities, including daily revenue collection, safeguarding funds, managing range offices, and overseeing tourist services. However, according to Circular No. 06/2006, individuals performing these roles have been assigned with the position of Management Assistant Supervisory under the MN3 category. Wildlife officials believe that these individuals should instead be placed in the MN5 category, which includes them being employed in Field/Office based Officer positions. These officers were first recruited in 1989 if they possessed a degree (B.Sc) from any stream and, since 1994. Those who got through all four subjects with two C passes in the Science stream were recruited as Wildlife Officers for grade three.
Wildlife officers said that, despite informing the Secretary of the Ministry of Wildlife and the Director General of Wildlife since 2006 about the injustices they have faced, no action has been taken to address these issues. While other government institutions and department in Sri Lanka have service minute guiding recruitment procedures, the Wildlife Department still lacks one, they added. As a result, no officer in the field has been promoted to the executive level since 1999. The absence of a service minute is seen as the most significant obstacle currently affecting this. Additionally, there is no recruitment procedure aligned with the criteria of the Public Service Commission as outlined in Circular No. 06/2006, as pointed out by Prabhash Karunathilaka, President of the All-Ceylon Integrated Wildlife Officers Association of the Wildlife Department.
Protests
“In 2019, 19 people were promoted with special cabinet approval after Wildlife Officers continued to protest this issue. If a competitive examination had been held for these promotions, approximately 56 individuals would have been eligible. However, due to the absence of a proper recruitment procedure within the Wildlife Department, only 19 people were promoted,” said Karunathilaka. According to him, this situation has arisen due to the cancellation of the recruitment procedure since 1999, following the implementation of Circular No. 06/2006.
As a result of this lack of recruitment, Wildlife Officers have been unable to advance beyond the Management Assistant Supervisory salary category. This has led to a significant issue within the Department of Wildlife and Conservation, where there is no longer personnel with field experience and the ability to manage higher administrative responsibilities.
Decision making hampered
|
|
This unhealthy situation is a result of the lack of promotions since 1999. Although 19 people were promoted in 2019, they are nearing retirement. Once they retire, there will be a shortage of experienced Wildlife Officers, and no promotion process will be available after these officers retire. Since their promotions were granted through special cabinet approval and given that there is no recruitment procedure within the Wildlife Department, these positions once falling vacant will not be filled. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult to address the elephant-human conflict. There are issues with managing elephant fences and finding remedies for elephant encroachment. Decision-making has been hampered due to the absence of personnel with field experience in the wildlife department.
Currently, there are about 800 Wildlife Officers in Sri Lanka, with about 42% of vacancies to be filled. There should be 1,140 Wildlife Guards and Range Assistants, but only 653 positions are filled; leaving 487 vacancies. Additionally, there should be 335 Rangers, but only 205 are currently employed; resulting in 105 vacancies. The job of a Wildlife Officer requires the individual to be available 24-hours. Yet there are no incentives, overtime allowances, or fuel allowances for these officers. They have to support their families on their salaries and prepare their meals while living in the wildlife office. Each Wildlife Officer is assigned 22 shifts of 24 hours per month, and their shift only ends when they take leave. There are no vehicles available to conduct raids. Karunathilaka said that despite risking their lives day and night, they don’t even have high-quality motorcycles to carry out their duties within the reserves.
The wildlife officers, back then, provided an exemplary service, keeping the future of the country in mind. In 1989, range assistants were recruited from among candidates who had completed the GCE Advanced Level Examination. Candidates applying for post of Ranger were recruited if they possessed any degree. However, in 1996, the requirement for this position was updated to a B.Sc. degree. According to circular 6/2006, rangers must now have passed any three subjects in A’ Levels in the science stream. Today, in an era of advanced technology and education, a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent qualification should be considered when recruiting for these positions. Karunathilaka underscored the fact that this issue is not only a concern for the Department of Wildlife and Conservation, but it also poses a serious problem for wildlife officers. He further added that an investigation should be done to find out whether the authorities are attempting to undermine the department and destroy natural forest sanctuaries and national parks.
|
Director General of the Department of Wildlife and Conservation, Chandana Suriyabandara, made these comments when asked about this issue: “Wildlife officials have informed us that they face challenges related to their promotions and pay scales. We perform our duties according to the existing legal framework and government circulars. We cannot operate outside of that framework. When we receive requests from wildlife officers, we forward them to the relevant institutions. Sometimes these institutions respond positively to the requests, and in such cases, we fulfill them. However, there are instances where no response is given, and we are unable to process those requests as we operate within the policies and decisions of the government.” said Suriyabandara. |
Currently, there are many vacancies in wildlife offices across Sri Lanka. For instance, after the officer in charge of raids at the Polonnaruwa wildlife office was transferred, no replacement was made. As a result, there is a lack of knowledgeable personnel to conduct raids or take legal action. When we inquired about this at the Polonnaruwa District Department of Wildlife and Conservation, an officer confirmed that no one has been assigned to oversee raids at the Polonnaruwa office. The raiding officers are based at the main office, and raids are conducted in response to complaints received at the Polonnaruwa office. When this newspaper inquired into the situation at the Anuradhapura Wildlife Office, an officer said that wildlife officers have faced numerous serious challenges in their jobs to date. He also mentioned that a wildlife officer in the district offices typically acts as the head during raids. However, after the former chief raid officer in Polonnaruwa was transferred, a suitable replacement hasn’t yet been made. He also mentioned that during the raids conducted by the former Polonnaruwa raid officer in 2005, the largest seizure of elephant tusks and milk teeth in Sri Lankan history were made; totaling 16 pairs of tusks.
The wildlife officer at the Anuradhapura Wildlife Office stated that wildlife officers are currently facing many challenges due to the implementation of sections of the Fauna and Flora Ordinance by officers who lack specialised experience. As a result, people living in the vicinity of wildlife areas, particularly those affected by human-elephant conflict, are also experiencing significant difficulties. To date, 89 wildlife officers have lost their lives due to elephant attacks and other accidents while on duty. These officers risk their lives without being concerned about promotions or salary increases and strive to fulfill their duties effectively. The Anuradhapura wildlife officer emphasised that authorities should recognise and appreciate the dedication of these officers, who risk their lives to protect 66 sanctuaries, 26 national parks, and 9 nature reserves.
When this writer inquired about this issue with the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, senior officials were unable to provide information. They stated that information could not be disclosed without the permission of the Director General of the Ministry. At the time this newspaper made the inquiry, Director General Chandana Kumarasinghe was reportedly at a meeting. However, a senior official, while commenting on the matter, mentioned that a request had been made to address this issue through the Department of Wildlife and Conservation. The official added that the timing of the request is unclear and that the matter is currently under review.