News
Sri Lanka’s EIAs fall behind in reporting social impacts, says report
View(s):A new study on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in Sri Lanka finds that the overall quality of reporting on how development projects affect people—including identifying the social effects, predicting, evaluating and mitigating them before major decisions are made—is low and often fails to safeguard local communities.
Among others, the report, “Assessing the Assessments: An Analysis of Social Impacts Reported in Environmental Impact Assessments in Sri Lanka” (published by Centre for a Smart Future, Colombo), identifies the Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project (UOMDP) and the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA) as two projects that resulted in severe consequences for communities.
Senith Abeyanayake, the report’s author, observes that UOMDP has been in the public limelight for decades due to issues in project design and politicisation.
Conceptualised during successive governments and rejected by Asian Development Bank (ADB) feasibility studies due to technical issues and adverse impacts, the project was pushed forward amidst severe backlash from local communities and environmentalists for political expedience, he observes.
“Though the project is now operational, flaws in both preliminary studies and project design caused a 9-year delay and additional direct costs of USD 39 million,” he states. More crucially, many community-level accounts highlight a range of severe socio-economic impacts such as structural damages to houses and drying of wells and water shortages which affected over 7,000 families.”
Even though the Supreme Court ordered compensation for farmers affected by the project in 2015, accounts indicate that not all payments have been made up to date.
Since its opening in 2013, MRIA has become a poster child for white elephant projects, earning the dubious moniker “the World’s Emptiest International Airport”, the report continues. Beyond the economic losses of the project, the Auditor General’s Department notes that the human elephant conflict has risen due to the project which has caused harm and deaths to people, elephants, and damages to property.
Such impacts also affect the operation of the airport as well, requiring a dedicated wildlife office setup in the airport premises. Problems with process and final choice of site selection is regarded as one of the key causes of this issue.
The study is based on the analysis of 250 Sri Lankan EIA reports published between 1991 and 2025. In Sri Lanka, social impact assessments are integrated directly into the EIA process rather than being standalone requirements. The addressing of social impacts is primarily governed by project-specific Terms of References (ToRs) issued by Project Approving Agencies (PAAs).
The report identifies many “methodological deficiencies”. Approximately 45% of EIA reports contain no explanation of the methodology used to identify or evaluate social impacts. Furthermore, 85% of reports fail to disclose any limitations or assumptions made during the analysis, leaving readers with little ability to assess the robustness of the findings.
Consultants frequently use identical “copy-pasted” impact descriptions across different projects, it states. For example, the same unsubstantiated list of negative social impacts (such as “clandestine relationships” or “increased smuggling”) was used for projects of vastly different scales and locations, making the reports verbose but adding no site-specific value.
Over half (52%) of the reports fail to classify social impacts based on essential dimensions like magnitude, reversibility, or temporality (short-term vs. long-term). Among those that do use scales (e.g., 1 to 5), 76% do not define what these numbers represent, rendering the logic of the assessment invisible to the public.
Many reports rely on sweeping generalizations and hostile language toward low-income or rural populations rather than empirical evidence. Some reports frame political movements or trade unions as negative “social impacts,” which the sources suggest moves beyond the technical scope of an EIA and into the realm of political propaganda.
In terms of reporting and accessibility gaps, executive summaries—which are intended for the casual reader—are often written in highly technical jargon. While guidelines recommend a limit of 100 pages, reports are increasingly becoming longer, with some exceeding 500 pages. This “useless bulk” makes it difficult for affected communities to digest the information within the 30-day public review period, the study points out.
In the area of verifiability and data disclosure, public scrutiny is hindered by a lack of transparency regarding data. And 40% of reports are inconsistent in disclosing their data sources. Additionally, for studies using mixed-methods primary data (like surveys), only 31% clearly disclose both the sample size and the survey timeframe.
Many reports include sensitive personal identifiers—such as names, residential addresses, National ID (NIC) numbers, and household incomes—in public annexures. This violation of data protection best practices may deter residents from participating honestly in surveys due to fears regarding confidentiality, the report observes.
Furthermore, the ToRs issued by approving agencies are inconsistently drafted; for instance, 17% of ToRs do not require the report to classify impacts or explain the methodology used. This results in a “universal chaos” where report quality varies wildly even when regulated by the same institution.
| Suggestions to address issue | |
The study lists several recommendations to address the low quality of social impact reporting in Sri Lankan EIAs.
limits for reports and executive summaries.
|
The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!