Budget Dreams, Ground Realities: The Growing Crisis of Human–Elephant Conflict
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, presented the 2026 budget to Parliament on the afternoon of the 7th. It is important to examine the proposals related to mitigating human–elephant conflict—arguably the most serious socio-economic, environmental, and political problem currently facing Sri Lanka. Thousands of elephants, and nearly forty percent of the country’s land area, on which people live, are affected.
The National People’s Power promised during the election campaign—and the public expected—that this burning issue would be addressed through scientific, effective, and long-term solutions. However, as we highlighted months ago, the present government has abandoned those promises and instead chosen a path that worsens human–elephant conflict through ignorance and misguided assumptions. A review of the recently announced budget proposals repeatedly shows that the solutions focus almost entirely on confining elephants to protected areas, erecting electric fences, and increasing manpower to maintain these fences. In other words, the government is relying yet again on outdated, unscientific, and unsuccessful strategies. As a cosmetic addition, a small allocation has been made for habitat enrichment.
Sri Lanka’s approach to elephant management and conflict mitigation was formulated in 1959, when the recommendation was first made to confine elephants to selected protected areas. After more than sixty years of effort by the Department of Wildlife Conservation to achieve this goal, 70% of elephant habitat still lies in landscapes shared with people. It is therefore self-evident that continuing this approach is unrealistic. Environmentalists and experts have repeatedly communicated this to the government since it came to power, yet the 2026 budget proposals show that these concerns have once again been ignored.
Despite extensive evidence that confining elephants to reserves and installing electric fences is a failed strategy, the current government initiated several such attempts in the Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, and Puttalam districts soon after assuming office. A similar attempt is now ongoing in the Hambantota area. If the government had reflected on the failure of these initiatives—or even considered them while preparing the budget—such unscientific and outdated proposals would not appear in the President’s budget.
If anyone believes that this approach will protect humans—regardless of the harm caused to elephants—it must be emphasized that this too is far from reality. Research by the Centre for Conservation and Research, led by Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando, using GPS-collared elephants, has shown that elephant drives do not succeed in displacing problem males from an area, and that some herds remain or eventually return to their original home range. During these drives, elephants are subjected to immense suffering through thousands of elephant-firecrackers (ali-wedi) and gunfire, which increases their aggression toward humans. Once these failed drives end and the political authorities responsible for them move on, it is the innocent villagers—left to face the agitated elephants—who pay the price, often with their lives.
Observations also show that when elephant herds are driven into protected areas and confined by electric fences, many individuals—especially calves—die of starvation. This tragedy affects not only elephants driven in from outside but also herds that historically lived entirely within protected areas.
It has now become clear that the current government has no genuine interest in implementing the scientifically grounded and well-coordinated National Action Plan developed in 2022 to minimize human–elephant conflict. Although the plan itself calls for the appointment of a Presidential Task Force, no government has acted on this. In place of such a Task Force, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed a Presidential Committee in November 2022 to facilitate and monitor implementation. Despite limited authority and funding, some progress was made in 2024: the Department of Agrarian Development installed about 300 seasonal crop protection electric fences, and the Department of Wildlife Conservation reduced elephant drives and translocation. These efforts likely contributed to the reduction in human and elephant deaths in 2024—after nine consecutive years of increases.
However, with the change in government, the committee’s term and implementation of the National Action Plan have effectively ended. From the outset, we emphasized the need for the current government to implement the National Action Plan fully and correctly. Instead, the President dismissed it, and on June 20 instructed officials to form district-level committees in conflict-affected areas and prepare district action plans. On July 7, a circular titled “Establishment of District Level Committees for Elephant–Human Conflict Management” (PS/DASA/Circular/5/2025) was issued under the signature of the Presidential Secretary. According to the Presidential Secretariat’s Information Officer, these district plans were still being received as of October 31. It is therefore evident that these documents were not considered when preparing the President’s budget proposals.
The only seemingly innovative component of the President’s proposals is habitat enrichment. Unfortunately, this too is largely illusory. The highest elephant densities occur in thorn scrub, grassland, and savanna ecosystems such as Udawalawe National Park, where densities reach about 3 elephants per square kilometer. In contrast, undisturbed mature forest in parks such as Wilpattu and Wasgomuwa supports only about 0.1 elephants per square kilometer. Thus, in theory, converting one square kilometer of mature forest into scrub or grassland could increase elephant carrying capacity from 0.1 to 3 elephants.
However, such habitat manipulation requires converting about 80 acres of undisturbed mature forest per elephant. The estimated cost of clearing and burning one acre is around Rs. 30,000, meaning that increasing the carrying capacity for a single elephant costs approximately Rs. 2.4 million per year. Sri Lanka has about 6,000 free-range elephants, of which at least 4,000 live in shared landscapes with people. Habitat management for these 4,000 elephants would cost Rs. 9,600 million. Clearly, the President’s vision is a fantasy, not a realistic plan.
Accordingly, it appears that the so-called ‘Mihikatha’ environmental policy presented by the current National People’s Power government to gain power—promising proper studies of wild elephant populations, migration patterns, and habitats, as well as public participation programs using biological and new technological methods to address human–elephant conflict—was, I regret to say, nothing more than a deceptive election promise.
