This time with the aid of the BBC

by Rohan Wijesinha

The Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) has banned the use of Unpiloted Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, over National Parks and other protected areas under its governance. This is based on international scientific research which has shown that they have negative behavioural effects on wild animals, especially the Asian Elephant and birds.

There are instances when drones have a use in conservation, for protection of wildlife and monitoring of Park boundaries, and for specific scientific research, but all of this must be with the permission of, and control of, the DWC. That is their mandate, as per the Constitution of Sri Lanka, to work for the safety and wellbeing of wildlife and the wilderness. Admittedly, the DWC has been found wanting in this regard, especially in the last few decades, but in this, they are right. India, with which Sri Lanka shares similar habitat, has taken the same position on this. National Parks and protected areas are for wildlife, and not to be exploited.

The BBC, however, and its local handlers, were placing great pressure on the DWC to rescind this rule for its own purpose and fly drones over the Horton Plains National Park. This is for a period of two weeks, with the drones to be flown at a height of 100 feet. There are no elephants on Horton Plains; long ago wiped out by the British. However, it is home to the largest herds of Sambhur in the island, as well as leopards and other endangered fauna, including birds. International research shows that drones have negative effect on the behavior of Sambhur when flown at or below 65m in height (213.255 feet). As such, it is certain that the Sambhur of Horton Plains will be considerably disturbed by drones at less than half this height.

When the DWC, apart from two other requests to which it agreed, stood to principle and refused the use of drones, the BBC’s local handlers approached politicians and even the office of the President to try and have the Director General change his mind. Initially, these policymakers and influencers, to their great credit, backed the DWC.

Threats and Corporate Backing subvert conservation

Their local handlers now allege that the BBC has threatened to withdraw from their project if they are not permitted to use drones over Horton Plains. They have now recruited the corporate world into placing pressure on the office of the Presidential Secretariat to get the DWC to accede to their demands. The arguments they use is that if the BBC withdraws, the population of Sri Lanka will suffer economically without the money brought in by them, and the international coverage they will give to Sri Lanka’s wildlife!

Let us be clear about this, the majority of the population of Sri Lanka will not benefit from this. The BBC, its local handlers and the hotels that will host these TV crews will; no one else. However, with Sri Lanka being in the throes of an economic crisis, such emotive statements may find credence with the policymakers, especially if backed by powerful corporate heads, and they have. The Presidential Secretariat has issued a directive to the Director General of the DWC to permit the BBC to use drones on Horton Plains.

Sri Lanka’s Natural Wealth is precious

The beautiful biodiversity, and stunning wilderness areas, of Sri Lanka are already known to the World; the Minneriya National Park has already been cited as one of the 10 Wildlife Wonders of the World due to its seasonal ‘Gathering’ of wild Asian elephants. The montane forests of Horton Plains, the leopards of Wilpattu, the rainforest of Sinharaja, the pristine beauty of Wilpattu, to name but a few, and the bountiful ocean that surrounds the island all add to this wonder. It is because of this that the BBC and other filmmakers are drawn to Sri Lanka from all over the World to film this wonder of Nature.

However, while further publicity of this natural, National Heritage, can only be of benefit in attracting more visitors to the island, why is it necessary to use a methodology that disturbs normal wildlife behaviour have to be used? Before the invention of drones, were there no wildlife films produced that documented the wonders of the Natural World? Do viewers and potential visitors to see them really wish to see footage that resulted from the harassment of wildlife?

The DWC’s ban is not only due to the stress that it causes wild animals, but also because collisions, especially with bird species have been fatal, and there have been records of drones crashing and causing forest fires. Imagine if one did on Horton Plains, the resulting damage would be devastating? And who would be held responsible? The DWC, of course, for granting permission for the use of drones, irrespective of the circumstances. As for the drone supporters, they will go back to pretending that they are lovers of wildlife.

The shame of it

What a shame on an institution like the BBC which has a rich history of producing the most wonderful of documentaries on the Natural World. However, the question then arises as to whether the use such bullying and corrupt tactics in other Developing Nations too to get the pictures they desire, irrespective of the well -being of the species they are filming?

Shame also to the authorities who still bow and scrape to such pressure, while undermining the conservation-based decision of its own statutory agency, the DWC. For once it is doing the right thing but is being undermined by political interference, yet again.