Despite its negative impact on migratory birds, environmentalists say ‘Yes’ to wind power- Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda

By Ifham Nizam

Environmentalists are opposing hydro power but not wind power, despite the latter having a negative impact on migratory birds, biodiversity authority Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda said.

Speaking at the Eighth Wildlanka Symposium recently at the Water’s Edge, Battaramulla on the topic, `Ethical Dilemmas in Biodiversity Policy’, Pethiyagoda said that the Upper Kotmale Hydro Power Plant Project was opposed for 20 years but was later implemented by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at double the cost.

Pethiyagoda added: ‘The-50 acre project has had no detrimental effect on the environment to date.

‘It is of concern that Sri Lanka has 4,500 km electric fences that are enough to cover the coastline three and a half times over.

‘Going by the current rate of elephant deaths, since the census of 2011, some 6,000 elephants have been killed.

‘More than 300 people die due to snake bites annually and some 150 people die due to elephant attacks, yet the latter deaths get vast attention.’

Wildlife Department, Director Operations, M.S.L.R.P. Marasinghe, said that wildlife conservation and biodiversity conservation are not merely about relocating elephants from human habitats or dealing with urban snake encounters.

Marasinghe added: ‘It’s a scientific journey towards sustainability; one that recognizes its anthropocentric nature and aims at inter-generational and intra-generational equity.

“In the current discourse on conservation, there is often a call for zero consumption. However, we understand that reaching zero consumption is an ideal that remains distant from reality. The true challenge lies in striking a balance between consumption and conservation that can sustain all aspects of the environment for years to come. Conservation, therefore, is a science-based journey towards sustainability that includes not only protection but also the wise use of our resources.

‘The blame for biodiversity depletion cannot solely be assigned to rural communities who may resort to poaching as a means of redistribution for economic losses. It extends to farmers encroaching on habitats for crop cultivation. It is disheartening to note that some conservation advocates and activists demand harsh penalties, including death sentences, for poaching. Such punitive approaches are rooted in the idea of deterrence, but the modern approach is driven by knowledge acting as a deterrent.

‘It’s worth noting that demand drives both encroachment and poaching. This demand arises from individuals who advocate conservation publicly, while simultaneously engaging in resource-intensive lifestyles. We find ourselves in the midst of a struggle against individuals who, behind the scenes, seek to subvert our conservation policies for personal gain. It is regrettable that some prominent activists rally with them in secret.

‘In a world where insatiable needs prevail, science must take the lead in finding conservation-friendly technologies that can satisfy these demands. The role of the Department of Wildlife Conservation extends beyond handling elephants and snakes. It also encompasses conservation education and the promotion of scientific knowledge enhancement.’