President hoodwinked or transparency assured?

Whither our voiceless heritage?

By Renuka Sadanandan and Kumudini Hettiarachchi

Renegotiate the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the ADB keeping in mind the actual needs of wildlife conservation in this country, a high-profile group from the Presidential Task Force for Wildlife Development urged President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in a letter dated February 20, 2001.

The group also recommended that a Steering Committee should be appointed by the President to monitor the implementation of the US$ 34.7 million Project, give it direction and report progress to her.

However, in a fresh development last week, two of the members of the group received Presidential appointments to oversee the implementation of the very project they wanted renegotiated. Respected conservationist Lyn de Alwis was appointed the President's Advisor on Wildlife Activities and Zoological Gardens while Managing Trustee of the Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust Jayantha Jayawardene was appointed Project Director of the ADB-funded Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project.

But what of the renegotiation recommendation? 

In September last year, President Kumaratunga appointed the Task Force whose brief was to formulate a wildlife conservation action plan for the country.

The Task Force comprising senior state officials from various conservation departments, academics and leading authorities from the wildlife and conservation field was initially briefed by the President at Temple Trees on September 18.

At their next meeting, they divided themselves into four committees to look into different aspects wildlife conservation and management headed by Jayantha Jayewardene, sustainable development headed by Iranganie Serasinghe, institutional and legal framework headed by Ranjith de Alwis and Zoological Gardens and ex-situ conservation by Lyn de Alwis. 

Not long into their deliberations, strange rumours came to their ears that wildlife park bungalows were to be closed by December on the instructions of the ADB. The move was said to be a condition, contained in an MOU between the Govt. and the ADB. But their efforts to secure a copy of this elusive document from the Presidential Secretariat threw up many conflicting versions. "The first document we received had only the covering page and the Assurances…it jumped from Pg. 1 to 35," said a member of the Task Force.

By now, thoroughly perturbed, they began querying the document's contents and were promised a Wildlife Department presentation that would lay to rest all their doubts. On December 8, 2000, they gathered at the Wildlife Department head office on Gregory's Rd and a stormy session ensued, with Task Force members questioning the secrecy and confusion that seemed to surround the MOU.

In a letter to the President dated 14th December, 2000, the Task Force complained, "…this presentation did nothing to dispel our fears and concerns. The presentation concentrated solely on the MOU and did not propose any implementation plans for the project as was expected."

Voicing their concerns, they stated, "The MOU has not been discussed adequately with the public in order to obtain the views of a cross-section of people. Certainly, no one at the presentation on the 8th had seen, let alone discussed the MOU during its preparation."

This letter was sent by Lyn de Alwis, Iranganie Serasinghe, Ravi Algama, Kamal Ratwatte and Jayantha Jayewardene. 

The final MOU the Task Force then received was dated May 3, 2000. It was the 'World Bank and Asian Development Bank Memorandum of Understanding of the Joint Pre-Appraisal Mission for the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project' that had been signed in Colombo. The signatories were Faiz Mohideen, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Mahinda Bandusena, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, K.A.S. Gunasekara, Secretary, Ministry of Forestry and Environment, A.P.A. Gunasekera, Director, Dept. of Wildlife Conservation, Sumith Pilapitiya, Senior Engineer (Environment and Infrastructure) World Bank and Adrian Ruthenberg, Senior Sector Specialist, Asian Development Bank.

It had as its objectives and scope; "The Project will support the Government to conserve the country's natural resources and wildlife biodiversity for the well-being of current and future generations and assist the Govt. in meeting the country's international commitments and other policy goals for conservation of wildlife biodiversity. By strengthening the institutional capacity of DWLC through the development of strategic management capacity and staff skills, provision of equipment and infrastructure, and the development of adaptive field management, PA (protected area) security will be enhanced. As part of securing the resource, the economic potential of PA based ecotourism will be stimulated through increased technical capacity, formation of public –community and private-public linkages and a programme of on-going product and service development that will contribute to raising the quality of visitor experiences. Durable improvement to the security of PA resources requires social support for conservation objectives. Buffer zone community empowerment along with revenue sharing between PAs and stakeholders will support a process of ongoing change.

"Ultimately, the potential value of Sri Lanka's biological resources will be achieved only if policies and operational strategies are co-ordinated across sectors. The Project will support a range of joint forums as well as the completion of a BCAP (Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan) and a cross-sector review of the total conservation system including potential roles for the private sector to assist in filling conservation system gaps. The development and financial support of joint forums at the operational and national level will provide a platform for future growth of sector co-ordination. Sector co-ordination will also be promoted through the provision of a sustainable financing mechanism that will develop social mobilization and empowerment for buffer zone communities irrespective of sectoral authority. The establishment of a Protected Area Conservation Trust (PACT) outside of Government to empower communities in local development initiatives will ensure ongoing support to conserving PAs after project completion."

What alarmed some members of the Task Force were not the objectives, so elaborately couched in technical jargon, but the Assurances which in their eyes appeared to contain a hidden agenda to get the Government of Sri Lanka to abrogate its citizens' rights to their natural heritage.

Some members of the Task Force saw in it a sinister attempt to scrap "one of the oldest pieces of legislation, the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (FFPO) and ultimately have it replaced by legislation drafted in accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan (BCAP)."

"Legislation is normally never scrapped, it is only amended to suit changing times. The BCAP is a move that will allow our country to be stripped of its natural resources," a Task Force member told The Sunday Times.

Said eminent conservationist and well-known wildlife photographer Nihal Fernando, "The President is being hoodwinked. This agency will take the rights of this country for six years. Even if they use Agent Orange on lantana (ganda pana) in Uda Walawe, we will not be able to stop it."

No such sinister motives lurk behind the MOU, merely the country's best interests with regard to the conservation and management of Protected Areas (PAs), insists Sumith Pilapitiya of the World Bank who was a signatory to the MOU. Himself an ardent naturalist, his office walls plastered with his own wildlife photographs, Pilapitiya maintains that the process leading up to the signing of the ADB/World Bank MOU was absolutely transparent.

"Why didn't all these people who are now so worried voice their concerns at the public forum the Wildlife Department held at the BMICH in late 1999? Only four people came."

The process began with a request from the Government of Sri Lanka, channelled through the Department of External Resources of the Ministry of Finance in 1996 for ADB assistance "to prepare project to conserve the country's rich wildlife resources, to develop nature-based tourism and to strengthen community participation in Protected Area management". In December 1997, the ADB approved a Technical Assistance (TA) to assist the Government in preparing an investment project. The Canadian-based AgriConsulting Company was hired in due course following the required procedure and they worked with the Department of Wildlife Conservation. No ADB staff were involved, Pilapitya said.

The first public interaction was on June 8, 1998 when representatives of over 60 agencies_ NGOs, public groups, community organisations, other donors and stakeholders met on the invitation of the DWLC. "Nothing was shrouded in secrecy as some now claim," says Pilapitiya, explaining the meaning of the contentious term 'stakeholder'.

"This means anybody who has a role to play in wildlife conservation, including the public."

This was the first of a series of public meetings, with the final one being held at the Le Kandyan hotel in Kandy. Then, DWLC officials and consultants had 15 meetings with villagers in the buffer zones of the Protected Areas (wildlife parks and nature reserves). 

" All these meetings are minuted and documented and can be accessed by the public," said Pilapitiya.

The final report was submitted in February '99 and an ADB factfinding mission visited Sri Lanka in April. Since biodiversity conservation formed an integral part of the proposal, funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was sought. GEF funding comes from foreign donors for three specific areas, biodiversity conservation, mitigation of greenhouse gases and prevention of pollution of international waterways. It has to be accessed through UNEP, UNDP or the World Bank, which is how the World Bank came into this particular picture.

Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake under whose purview the DWLC came, appointed a task force of Govt officials, NGO representatives and academics to guide the consultants. This task force included the then Director of Wildlife A.P.A Gunasekera, PERC Chairman Mano Tittawella, NGO representatives Rohan Pethiyagoda and Jayantha Jayawardena, Prof. Sarath Kotagama from the University of Colombo, Ravi Deraniyagala of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society, Jagath Fernando, Director Tourism from John Keells and Maxi Prelis, General Manager of DFCC with the ADB and WB representatives as observers.

The mandate was to develop a new wildlife policy for Sri Lanka and guide the consultants in project preparation. In this effort, the task force utilised a policy paper developed when Prof. Kotagama had been head of the DWLC.

"Each time the ADB/WB mission came down, a review was done and the MOU revised according to the deliberations which had taken place. These were drafts that were still being developed, amended. They were not the final document which was approved only on May 3, 2000," Pilapitiya said, explaining the confusion over the 'many' MOUs.

"Long before the BMICH meeting, the public was informed of the draft through newspaper advertisements in all three languages. Anyone could write in for a copy and study the draft. It was then that the final public meeting was held to hear objections and recommendations, but the response was disappointing."

A Govt. delegation then left for ADB headquarters in Manila for the final negotiations. Once fine-tuned, the MOU now titled, "Report and Recommendation of the President (of Sri Lanka) to the Board of Directors (of the ADB) on a proposed loan to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project'- RRP: SRI 31381 was presented to the ADB Board in September.

It was approved in October 2000.

As far as the donors were concerned, the Project was on course. 

But controversy was soon to erupt, firstly over the proposed closure of park bungalows. Wildlife enthusiasts are up in arms at the MOU wording: The Govt. meanwhile, with ADB encouragement has agreed to end DWLC management of tourist bungalows. Their subsidized prices inhibit private investment, managing them distracts DWLC from its primary role as the regulator of PA (Protected Area) use, and DWLC is subject to pressure to provide use of the bungalows at commercially non-viable rates to those with influence. Other policy alternatives, such as community leasing of bungalows are being explored. ADB and the Project will promote ecotourism development through such measures as planning, training, concession agreements, and infrastructure investments within the PAs and outside in conjunction with local communities. The Project also allows for the sharing of PA revenue with co-operating communities through outreach grants from the Wildlife Preservation Fund". 

The Specific Assurance pertaining to this clause reads: Within two years of loan effectiveness, DWLC will have commenced the implementation of contracts with local communities/private sector for their environmentally low impact operation of all DWLC tourist bungalows retained for tourist purposes. Such contracts will be on an arm's-length basis and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Government and ADB (from the RRP: SRI 31381).

The proposal to privatise the bungalows is anathema to wildlife lovers for whom the park holiday is a cherished tradition. "We go there every school holidays, after queueing several nights, sleeping in our cars, down Gregory's Road to make the booking. We don't mind the inconvenience, but if it is privatised the bungalows will be beyond the reach of the average Sri Lankan," a diehard nature lover said.

Pilapitiya counters this with the argument that bungalows should subsidise the parks and not the other way round as it happens now. "When the consultants suggested that the bungalows be privatised or the communities be allowed to manage them as in Costa Rica, the DWLC didn't like it. They opted to close the bungalows."

Several other sticky issues over biopiracy concerns, misuse of funds and a clause which stops the Government "from any action that would interfere with the independence of the Protected Area Conservation Trust (PACT) are also giving many environmentalists sleepless nights. 

But newly appointed Project Director Jayantha Jayawardene assures that fears regarding large sums from the Project kitty being used for the hiring of foreign consultants are unfounded. "There is so much Sri Lankan expertise that we can utilise. We will always look to find Sri Lankan specialists first, then Sri Lankans abroad and those with regional expertise," he told The Sunday Times.

Adds WB's Pilapitiya, "What is important in the MOU is the broad objectives that have been laid out. As long as those are unchanged, the details of implementation during the six years can be modified to suit the ground situation, after review with the concerned parties."

Meanwhile, what irks some Presidential Task Force members is the lack of focus in the government's efforts to formulate and adopt a far-sighted policy on wildlife conservation. A National Wildlife Policy for Sri Lanka has been approved by Cabinet, the ADB MOU has been signed, while the Task Force has also been mandated to prepare a policy for the conservation of wildlife. This is a chaotic situation, say informed sources.

On which will hang the fate of Sri Lanka's precious wildlife?

Some Task Force recommendations and WB's counter-points:

Wildlife Conservation and Management comprising Jayantha Jayawardene, Chairman, H.D. Ratnayake, Co-ordinator, Lyn de Alwis, Lal Anthonis, Dr. Ravi Samarasinha, Vajira Wijegoonewardena, Ranjith de Alwis, Ravi Deraniyagala, Dr. U.K.G. Padmalal, Kamal Ratwatte, D.I.G Indra Silva, Major General D.S.K. Wijesooriya have, with regard to the MOU, offered the following recommendations:

• On the Specific Assurance in the MOU stating that the Government will refrain from any action which may interfere with the independence of the PACT in its decision making.

Comment: This takes away the right of the Government to ensure that the activities of the Trust are in keeping with Govt. policy.

Recommendation: Apart from the ex-officio trustees, the President should have the right to appoint two of the other trustees.

WB reply: This clause was meant to prevent any political 'misuse' and interference in the project. Moreover, the PACT would be working closely with the DWLC. 

• The sequence of steps to be taken with regard to new legislation are the amendment of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (FFPO), then the preparation of a Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan (BCAP) and finally new legislation to replace the amended FFPO to provide full implementation to the BCAP.

Comment: The Biodiversity Conservation Secretariat is to function under the Ministry of Forestry and Environment and is to formulate the BCAP. Forestry is concerned primarily with the cultivation, harvesting and utilisation of timber species, whereas the DWLC is entrusted with the conservation of the fauna and flora of this country. Furthermore, 85 percent of the present protected areas fall within the purview of the DWLC. If these articles of the MOU are put into operation, it will effectively take away all powers of the Minister in charge of Wildlife and the Ministry of Forestry will be in total control of Forestry and Wildlife.

Recommendation: The FFPO should be amended and revised in consultation with the DWLC, who will continue to have the lead role in the amendment and the implementation of the new FFPO as well. Other related agencies such as the Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Coast Conservation Department etc, should be consulted when drafting any amendments.

WB reply: The decision to set up the Biodiversity Conservation Secretariat under the Ministry of Forestry and Environment was made by the Govt. of Sri Lanka not the donor agencies who would merely like to see all the related conservation agencies such as the Forest Department, the DWLC, the Coast Conservation Dept, and the Central Environment Agency all working in co-operation with each other under one Minister. There was never a suggestion that the DWLC should be amalgamated with the Forest Department. 

* The operation of tourist bungalows by the private sector on an "arm's length basis" satisfactory to the ADB and the Govt.

Comment: The term "arm's length basis" is not understood. These bungalows are not tourist lodges, but basic facilities for the wildlife-loving public. They were never meant to be profit making though they had to pay for themselves.

Recommendation: The capacity of the DWLC to run the bungalows for wildlife enthusiasts should be developed. 

WB reply: The idea behind this suggestion to privatise was that the bungalows should subsidize the park and not vice-versa. The word 'tourist' simply refers to 'anyone who is on tour', and is not meant to denote foreigners only.

Inside the glass house

Editorial/ Opinion Contents