‘ETH-PORAYA’ with humans needs a science-based approach

Readers of a certain vintage may recall the iconic sketch that adorned the cover of the Upper Kindergarten Sinhala textbook ‘Kumarodaya’—a vivid depiction of five elephants fused into a chaotic, tangled block of confusion labelled, ‘Eth-Poraya’, [engaged in a frenzied wrestling match]. 

Today, the imagery of the ‘Eth-Poraya’ feels almost prophetic as a modern-day tragedy unfolds—scripted and performed by five key players: wildlife enthusiasts, politicians, state authorities, the media and the so-called ‘mahouts’ of our time. These five ‘proboscides’ claim to champion the interests of both affected farming communities and elephants, yet their actions resemble a misguided spectacle. In this drama, the real burden falls on the elephants and impoverished farmers, echoing the silent tragedies alluded to in that classroom story of years past.

However, proponents of the scientific method among elephant enthusiasts argue: “When addressing wildlife-human conflict in Sri Lanka, the persistent failure to adopt science-based strategies has hindered effective mitigation for decades. Political interference and the dismissal of expert-backed solutions have only exacerbated the issue, as evidenced by the worsening human-elephant and human-monkey conflicts.”

In 2006, Sri Lanka introduced its first Elephant Conservation Policy with expert input to address the HEC crisis. Despite cabinet approval, the policy was never fully implemented. An updated version in 2020, also guided by experts, faced political delays, further worsening the situation.

  The statistics are alarming: in 2006, HEC caused 160 elephant and 79 human deaths; by 2023, these figures had risen to 470 and 184, respectively. Among the policy’s recommendations were science-based solutions such as community-based electric fencing. Pilot projects in Kurunegala, Hambantota, Trincomalee and Anuradhapura showed promising results, with significant reductions in HEC. Some fences operated successfully for over a decade, highlighting the urgent need for nationwide implementation of these measures.

Adding to this grim situation was an unsuccessful attempt to relocate wild elephants from areas such as Sravasthipura, Thambuttegama, Wilachchiya, Moragoda, and Thanthirimale in the Anuradhapura District to Wilpattu National Park. Approximately 150 elephants, including females and calves, were trapped without food for over a week at a livestock farm in Oyamaduwa. The confinement prevented the elephants from foraging at night or following their natural migratory routes, causing significant distress and starvation.

Experts suggested that allowing the elephants to leave via their natural migratory paths, while closely monitoring their movements, could alleviate the crisis. Compensation for any property or crop damage during this migration was proposed as a necessary step in the solution. However, administrative inaction left the elephants to endure severe stress and hunger. Periodic elephant relocations have historically failed, further exacerbating the problem. Sensationalised media coverage has contributed to public panic about marauding elephants, prompting reactionary measures by officials that often worsen the situation. Addressing the human-elephant conflict requires sustainable, long-term strategies rather than hasty, ineffective actions.

Similarly, the human-monkey conflict has grown into a pressing issue that could have been mitigated years ago with proper planning. In 2016, primate experts collaborated with multiple agencies to devise a comprehensive strategy titled “Strategy to Conserve and Coexist with Sri Lanka’s Monkeys—2016 to 2026.” The goal was to address the human-monkey conflict within a decade. Unfortunately, like the Elephant Conservation Policy, this strategy also fell victim to bureaucratic inertia and was never implemented.

One of the main issues fueling the human-monkey conflict is the widespread misconception that toque macaques are overpopulated. However, research shows that their high density in human settlements is primarily due to human behaviour, such as feeding monkeys, leaving waste food accessible, and failing to secure food supplies. These actions create a dependency that exacerbates the conflict. Despite repeated warnings, both locals and authorities have largely ignored this advice, allowing the situation to deteriorate further.

Consequences of mythology over science

One of the most tragic aspects of Sri Lanka’s wildlife-human conflict is the reliance on myths and unscientific practices to address these issues. For example, traditional beliefs and anecdotal practices often take precedence over scientific recommendations. This reliance on mythology has not only failed to resolve conflicts, but has also worsened them. In contrast, the science underpinning these strategies is the result of years of rigorous research by dedicated scientists. The solutions proposed are not speculative, but are based on proven methods and successful pilot projects. For instance, in the case of HEC, community-based electric fences have shown consistent success in minimizing conflict. Similarly, in addressing the human-monkey conflict, public awareness campaigns discouraging the feeding of monkeys could have significantly reduced the problem. The failure to act on these insights highlights a broader issue: the undervaluation of scientific expertise in policy making.

The best time to implement these strategies would have been many years ago when the crises first began to escalate. However, the second-best time is now. Delaying action further will only exacerbate the problem, leading to more unnecessary deaths and a worsening of Sri Lanka’s already strained relationship with its wildlife. The consequences of inaction are not just ecological but also socio-economic. Farmers in regions plagued by HEC face devastating crop losses, while communities affected by the human-monkey conflict endure damage to property and threats to personal safety. These conflicts erode trust between humans and wildlife, fostering resentment that can lead to further harm.

Experts suggested that allowing the elephants to leave via their natural migratory paths, while closely monitoring their movements, could alleviate the crisis. Compensation for any property or crop damage during this migration was proposed as a necessary step in the solution

To move forward, we must adopt science-based strategies immediately, requiring political will, public awareness, and a shift in addressing wildlife issues. Key actions include: expanding community-based electric fencing for HEC, discouraging monkey feeding through awareness campaigns, enforcing wildlife protection laws, investing in research on conflict mitigation, empowering communities through training, and incorporating wildlife conservation into school curricula.  Lessons from other countries offer valuable insights. Kenya’s beehive fences have reduced crop-raiding elephants while generating farmer income through honey. In India, community-driven conservation efforts have minimised human-leopard conflicts. These examples show that with effective strategies and community engagement, wildlife-human conflicts can be managed successfully.

Sri Lanka’s wildlife-human conflict is a complex issue that demands urgent attention. The solutions are not beyond reach; they are already known, tested, and proven to work. What is lacking is the will to act. By prioritising science over myths, engaging communities, and learning from global best practices, Sri Lanka can turn the tide and ensure a future where humans and wildlife coexist harmoniously. The time to act is now, before the losses become irreversible.

This writer wishes to thank, young Elephant enthusiasts, Tharindu Muthukumarana and Kelum Mahesh for their insightful ideas.

(The writer can be reached at [email protected])