Pitfalls in wildlife deal with the ADB
The Asian Development Bank's publicity machine rolled into action and some
newspapers and television carried the propaganda on the benefits of its
project for wildlife in Sri Lanka (Protected Area Management Plan).
They make no mention of any opposition to this project. That a large
number of leading conservationists in Sri Lanka and several conservation
NGOs have openly expressed opposition to these proposals received no mention.
Hardly surprising, as this project has been bereft of transparency from
the very outset.
A Presidential Task Force of renowned conservationists and the Wildlife
and Nature Protection Society (the oldest conservation NGO in South Asia)
have made recommendations to the President to renegotiate this project
as they see it as being detrimental to conservation in Sri Lanka. It is
of interest that the Task Force was set up after the agreement had been
signed by the ADB and the Government in September 2000; once the President
had taken charge of wildlife.
The Task Force's recommendations to the President were made in February
2001.
A few weeks later, in a letter to an official of the World Bank, some
members of the Task Force and a few others pledged their support for this
project. Two of them are trustees of a leading conservation NGO and were
among the few who were invited to a majority of the pre-project planning
meetings of the ADB.
The post of project director was advertised and one trustee of the NGO
was a member of the interview panel. The qualification requirement for
such a post, the necessity for a candidate to have at least a university
degree — was waived, and instead a clause added that the successful candidate
should have ten years of managerial experience.
A laudable change if one was to consider the dedicated senior personnel
who have given many decades of service to the Wildlife Department and yet
are deprived from holding such a position. But it was not to be.
Ominous, and as feared by conservationists, the ADB advertises its proposals
in the business section of newspapers and on a leading business programme
on television.
In this, for once, they are being transparent. This project is not about
conservation, but about business. ADB's John Cooney stated on television
that through this project "Sri Lanka's natural resources can be exploited".
The whole project is about exploitation. There is no mention of conservation
in it. It is all about sustainable development, even in strict natural
reserves, eco-tourism, and the exploration of what financial projects can
be made of Sri Lanka's rich and unique biodiversity in as short a time
as possible. No wonder that one of its most ardent local supporters is
a renowned exporter of indigenous fish and amphibian species!
Meanwhile, one can only wonder at what it will pay its foreign consultants,
necessary appointments according to the agreement. No wonder 52 percent
of the total monies are being retained overseas for these payments. After
all, the profits of this venture are not meant for Sri Lanka!
As a further predictor of the future, the panel shown on TV at a well-orchestrated
news conference, consisted of the ADB, the World Bank and their supporters.
Wildlife director Dayanada Kariyawasam was interviewed separately in
his office. The ADB's project director made comments on behalf of the department
at the news conference!
This is the ADB's show, controlled and directed by it, with the aid
of its select appointments. As the agreements says "… not even the Government
of Sri Lanka can interfere…" and only those "… acceptable to the ADB…"
can be appointed to the Steering Committees and Trusts. The department
and its employees will be marginalised. After all, a strong department
would be harder to exploit and it is the stated intent of the ADB to ultimately
get rid of the department altogether.
It is disappointing that the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society,
apart from its initial expression of dissent, has failed to follow it up,
and the ADB carries on without further challenge from this oldest of institutions.
Has it, too, had a dramatic change of heart?
Neither has the Minister for Wildlife made known her views on the subject.
Her silence may be construed as agreement; the reason for the ADB's supreme
confidence in completely ignoring the concerns of so many in conservation.
In the meantime, the wildlife and protected areas of Sri Lanka are faced
with one of the most dangerous of projects. One only has to peruse the
records of the ADB and the World Bank in their conservation and poverty
alleviation initiatives in other countries to see how harmful they are.
The World Bank's last conservation project in India, to preserve tigers,
designed very much on the lines of this project, resulted in some national
parks losing up to 25 percent of their tigers.
As with the fight to save Eppawela from foreign exploitation and environmental
devastation, it may be up to committed conservationists to protect Sri
Lanka's wildlife through the courts. Learned scrutiny of the documents
in question confirms that there is much that can be challenged, particularly
the ADB's attempts to have the laws of the land changed to enable its easier
exploitation.
Finally, it is the people of this nation who must take responsibility
for preserving the national resources of this island for posterity, as
well as holding the Government and any others involved, accountable for
any threat to their sovereignty.
May the people's voice be heard!
Prasanna Weerawardene
Nugegoda |
