Impact of Protection Regimes and Social-Ecological Resilience: A case study from Sri Lanka

Saranya Hasanthi Urugodawatte Dissanayake

Natural Resource Management, Governance and Globalisation Master Thesis 2005:12

2(91)

Impact of Protection Regimes and Social-Ecological Resilience: A case study from Sri Lanka

Saranya Hasanthi Urugodawatte Dissanayake

Natural Recourse Management, Governance and Globalisation Master Thesis 2005:12

Supervisor: Henrik Ernstson

Centre for Transdisciplinary Research on the Environment, CTM Stockholm University www.ctm.su.se

3(91) This thesis is written to fulfil the requirements of the Master Program

Natural Resource Management, Governance, and Globalisation a transdisciplinary program held by the Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, CTM, Stockholm University. The one-year program has four course models and ends with the writing of a master thesis on a subject related to at least one of the course modules.

1. Philosophy of sustainability science Addresses the difficulties and opportunities in transdisciplinary environmental research. In lectures and seminars participants discuss methodological and epistemological issues such as explanations, causality, systems borders, and objectivity. Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Course leaders: Agr.Dr Thomas Hahn and Dr. Annika Dahlberg 2. Natural Resource Management and Ecosystem Resilience Focuses on the ecosystem capacity to generate life-supporting services and how adaptive management can enhance this capacity and which constraints and opportunities are offered by globalisation. Department of Systems Ecology Course leader: Prof. Thomas Elmqvist 3. Ecosystem management: Collaboration in networks and organizations Investigates the social capacity to develop adaptive governance including arenas for collaboration and conflict resolution. Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research Course leader: AgrDr. Thomas Hahn and Dr. Per Olsson 4. International governance of natural resource management Uses a macro-perspective on governance. The actors and social-ecological drivers of international regimes are analysed, using a few case studies that provide a historical and institutional context. Legal as well as normative perspectives are discussed. Department of Economic History Course leader: Dr. Elisabeth Corell

More information on the program is available at http://www.ctm.su.se/ngg

About The Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research (CTM):

CTM aims to catalyse environmental research and promote environmental education across the faculties. CTM is part of Stockholm University and complements the activities of the different academic departments. CTM is also in close cooperation with other Stockholm-based organisations and institutes conducting research in the environmental and sustainable development field. CTM turns science into knowledge by spreading information about natural resources and environmental issues. We also offer seminars and courses on the subject of environmental and sustainable development issues.

Homepage: http://www.ctm.su.se

4(91) CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

Abbreviations

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study 1.2. Historical background of Sinharaja and the area surrounding it (including Kudawa) 1.3. Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase I 1.4. Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase II 1.5. Problem statement 1.5.1. Problem domain 1.6. Aim of the study 1.7. Research questions

2. Theoretical framework

3. Methodology

3.1. Methods 3.1.1. Literary surveys and review of policy documents and reports 3.1.2. Interviews and discussions 3.1.2.1.Interview process 3.1.2.2. Anonymity of interviewees 3.1.3. Reflection on previous experiences 3.2. Limitations

4. The study area

4.1. Buffer zone 4.2. Features of Sinharaja 4.3. Ecosystem services from Sinharaja 4.4. Kudawa village 4.5. Socio-economic aspects of Kudawa 4.6. Infrastructure facilities in Kudawa 4.7. Current situation

5. Results

5.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase I 5.1.1. Static view of the ecosystem 5.1.2. Inadequate coordination among state agencies 5.1.3. Stakeholder participation 5.1.4. Research 5.1.5. Impact on Kudawa 5.1.6. Demarcation of boundary: forest and buffer zone 5.1.7. Implications of land ownership

5(91) 5.1.8. Loss of local ecological knowledge (LEK) 5.1.9. National and international recognition 5.2. Strengths and weaknesses: Management Plan – Phase II 5.2.1. Demarcation of boundary: forest and buffer zone 5.2.2. Alternative livelihood and further loss of LEK

6. Analysis

6.1. Relationship between villagers and Researchers 6.2. Relationship between villagers and the Kudawa Forest Office 6.2.1. Disagreements 6.3. Relationship between Researchers and the Forest Department 6.4. Current village economy and its future 6.5. Current impasse in Kudawa 6.6. Socio-economic development in Kudawa 6.7. Increasing dependency on scientific knowledge over LEK 6.8. Erosion of LEK and monitoring of forest 6.9. Desire for permanent government employment 6.10. Implications due to tea plantations and demand for land 6.11. Recognition of traditional rights 6.12. Migration trends: into and out of Kudawa 6.13. Eco-tourism and responsibilities of Forest Department 6.14. Implications of the construction of a new road 6.15. Aspirations of Kudawa villagers 6.16. Leadership in the village 6.16.1. “Rise” and “fall” of a leader - Mr. Aruna 6.16.2. Emerging youth leadership - Mr. Channa 6.17. Towards a new horizon - social capital formation

7. Discussion

7.1. Pre-1971 scenario: traditional way of life 7.1.1. Background 7.1.2. Discussion 7.2. 1971: Commencement of logging results in a regime shift 7.2.1. Background 7.2.2. Discussion 7.3. 1972 – 1977: Gathering momentum 7.3.1. Background 7.3.2. Discussion 7.4. 1978: From exploitation to conservation 7.4.1. Background 7.4.2. Discussion 7.5. 1979 – 1987: The way forward – from conservation to sustainable use 7.5.1. Background 7.5.2. Discussion 7.6. 1988: Conservation vs. sustainable use – flaws in national policy 7.6.1. Background 7.6.2. Discussion 7.7. 1989 – 1998: towards institutionalization 7.7.1. Background 7.7.2. Discussion 7.8. 1998 onwards: What does the future hold? 6(91) 7.9. The impact of the current governance system on the social-ecological resilience of the study area 7.10. Concluding Discussion

8. Recommendations

9. Conclusion

Bibliography

Tables

Table 1 – Chronology of events for Sinharaja and Kudawa Village Table 2 – Crucial events that left strong impact on the social-ecological resilience of the study area Table 3 – An outline of scales affecting the social-ecological system of the study area Table 4 – Structure of the Forest Department (coming down to the Kudawa Forest Office) Table 5 – Interview groups and number of persons interviewed in each group Table 6 – Number of interviewed persons at different social levels Table 7 – Temperature and relative humidity data available in Sinharaja and the buffer zone management of forests Table 8 – Moving flocks of birds and animals: a unique phenomenon in Sinharaja (source: De Zoysa & Raheem, 1993) Table 9 – Income and sources of income of villagers of Kudawa Table 10 – Key policies, legislations, institutional changes concerning the management of natural forests in Sri Lanka during the 20th century Table 11 – Sri Lanka’s obligations under international agreements relating to conservation and management of forests

Figures

Figure 1 – Detailed map of the study area and its surroundings (source: Sinharaja - Our Heritage, 2002) Figure 2 – Map of Sinharaja with the villages, main roads and trails and the study area marked (source: De Zoysa & Raheem, 1993) Figure 3 – Sketch map of roads leading to Sinharaja through Kudawa and main infrastructure Figure 4 – 1722 Dutch map of Sri Lanka (source: De Zoysa & Raheem, 1993) Figure 5 – Logged areas of Sinharaja (source: Gunatilleke & Gunatilleke, 2005) Figure 6 – Devolution of power – corresponding administrative and political structures

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Note on the historical background on the forests and forest polices of Sri Lanka during the modern times Appendix 2 – Guiding questionnaire for interviews Appendix 3 – Note on features of Sinharaja: location, extent, physical environment and biodiversity

Pictures

Picture 1 – Kudawa houses: then and now 7(91) Picture 2 – Kitul tapping and allied industries Picture 3 – Secondary vegetation in the buffer zone1 Picture 4 – Secondary vegetation in the buffer zone Picture 5 – Undergrowth in pinus plantations Picture 6 – The view from Disithuru Eco-Lodge towards Kudawa Forest Office Picture 7 – The Blue Magpie Lodge Picture 8 – Land use then and now Picture 9 – Kudawa Forest Office

8(91) Acknowledgement

Opportunity to follow the International Masters in Natural Resource Management, Governance and Globalization at the Stockholm University has made my stay in Sweden worthwhile and provided me with an opportunity to further explore my interests. It was in deed a worthwhile challenge for me; to cope up with rather a tight schedule with full-time studying while on full-time job as the Chargé d’ Affaires for a period of seven months and there after as Counsellor at the Sri Lanka Embassy in Stockholm. Still I did find time and also enjoyed the interactions with my fellow course mates. In fact, sharing experiences and knowledge amongst the fellow course mates from across the globe, was one of the best things about the course.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Stockholm University, which selected me to join this course and all the teaching staff/coordinators of the course for their efforts and patience with us. Being a pilot course, sometimes, things were not smooth as expected; but I believe we were effective guinea pigs – meaning that we provided constructive criticism to further improve the course in the future.

I also take this opportunity to thank the former Ambassador for Sri Lanka in Stockholm, Dr. V. K. Valsan for granting permission to follow the course - having faith that I would not neglect office work by engaging in full-time studies.

I am much indebted to my supervisor, Henrik Ernstson, who patiently guided me to focus; above all having all the patience to read my lengthy drafts. There were times that in spite of been exhausted to the maximum, I still over stretched my capacity and worked for few more hours - to wee hours of the morning; because I felt guilty of the time and efforts he was putting towards supervising me! Thank you Henrik and it will be always appreciated, remembered and treasured in a true Sri Lankan spirit.

Of course among those who helped me to survive a full-time job and studies are Catie and Nathan from the course, my friends, Rose and Palitha, who are wildlife biologists and introduced me to several important contacts in Sri Lanka, all the officials and academics with whom I was in touch with in Sri Lanka, including Professors Savitri and Nimal Gunatilleke, Professor S. W. Kotagama and Mr. H. M. Bandarathillake, who afforded me interviews, provided with much supportive material and policy documents, Divisional Secretary and staff of Kalawana Divisional Secretariat, villagers of Kudawa, staff at Kudawa Forest Office, Eco-tourism guides in Kudawa, Samurdhi and Grama Niladhari of Kudawa and so many others. The most important thing was that all those I interviewed, referred to me to others. The ripple effect of introductions helped me to obtain empirical data from a wide range of sources, much more than I originally planned for.

I am also grateful to my husband Kithsiri, who constantly persuade me to engage in academic studies, my sisters Bindu and Himali and my parents for obtaining me much of relevant literature on Sinharaja as and when required, their patience and for assistance during field work; also I am thankful to my nephews, Mahesha and Dumindu, who live not so far away from Kudawa, and supported me in many ways when I was in Kudawa, and afterwards, in obtaining information.

Finally, the fieldwork stimulated me so much that I hope, I would be able to continue (or at least assist someone to continue) similar studies involving the relationship between not only Sinharaja and Kudawa, but also other villages close to Sinharaja.

9(91) ABBREVIATIONS

ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations CAS Complex adaptive systems CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBO Community-based Organization CEA Central Environment Authority DWLC Department of Wildlife Conservation EIA Environment Impact Assessment EU European Union FD Forest Department FINNIDA Finnish International Development Agency FSMP Forestry Sector Management Plan GN Grama Niladhari Ha Hectares IBP International Biosphere Programme IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KHGN–KDS Kalawana Headquarters Grama Niladhari at the Kalawana Divisional Secretariat LEK Local ecological knowledge MAB International Man and Biosphere Programme MENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources NGO Non-governmental organization NHWA National Heritage and Wilderness Area NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation REEC Research, Education and Extension Centre SCA Sinharaja Conservation Area SES Social-Ecological System SN Samurdhi Niladhari TV Television UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC Untied Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change WHS World Heritage Site WWF World Wildlife fund

10(91) Abstract

Social-ecological resilience can be defined as the capacity for an ecosystem to produce ecosystem services to support livelihoods for human well-being. It links social and ecological systems and encompass social, economic and ecological dimension of sustainable development. Based on literature review and interviews, in this study I examine the impact of protection regimes on the social-ecological resilience through a case study from Sri Lanka. The study area is located in the northwestern border of the Sinharaja rain forest on the southwestern hills of Sri Lanka. It is confined to the Kudawa village within the buffer zone, and adjacent areas of Sinharaja to which the villagers have access. Sinharaja rain forest consists of 11,187 ha. It is an International Man and Biosphere Reserve and a UNESCO World Heritage. The study is focused on analyzing how the governance system of Sinharaja has changed and the impact of the current governance system on social-ecological resilience of the study area in the context of changing protection regimes considering key years as threshold years. The concepts of social-ecological resilience and governance systems are the main theoretical frameworks used for analysis. The concepts of local ecological knowledge (LEK) and adaptive co-management are used as tools and indicators in addressing the research questions. Results of this study indicate that international trends have been a major cause for changes to the governance system, which has affected the social-ecological resilience of the study area. However, there had also been events and actions occurring at local level that has affected the social-ecological resilience. Conclusion of this study is that the future stability and resilience of the study area depends on how effective the governance issues are addressed, inducing villagers to participate in forest-related activities and encouraging sustainable use of forest produce, while creating opportunities to continue the generation of local ecological knowledge. Tea cultivation with its increase use of pesticides and herbicides is another aspect that needs long-term consideration when it comes to future social-ecological resilience in the study area.

Key words: Sinharaja forest, Kudawa village, social-ecological system, social-ecological resilience, governance, protection regimes

11(91) 1. Introduction

History of earth and of mankind has been a continuously evolving story of change and adaptation. Those who adapt survive and others disappear. Throughout history, humanity has shaped nature and nature has shaped the development of human society (Tainter, 1988). However, human beings have been able to add multidimensional twists to the evolutionary process; technological advancements of the human culture has cut through the natural processes in the environment; thus, human culture has become an emerging property of evolution. The process will continue for many millennia to come.

Social and ecological systems are complex and we cannot attain total knowledge about them. Our ability to predict their future is thus impossible. In such circumstances, we must strive to reduce uncertainties and when needed, to find ways of coping with unpredictable environmental change. This means improving our ability to assess future events and to learn on different levels and contexts; scientifically, socially, and politically. In these circumstances, ecological management processes are undergoing a series of challenges with the emergence of philosophies based on the systems approach, which emphasis the view that human beings are an integral part of the ecosystem (Berkes, 2004).

Both the words “adaptation” and “adaptive” are derived from the word “adapt” which means the ability to endure changing circumstances. The endurance comes from within; from the flexible characteristics possessed by a single living being, or a process, or a system. This flexibility creates resilience. Thus it demonstrates the fact that humanity and nature has been evolving in a dynamic fashion (Norgaard, 1994).

In my opinion in the modern world there are two opposite systems of governance being promoted simultaneously; one focuses on centralization where more and more nation states are becoming a part of larger political entities; i.e. the European Union (EU); while Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) can be considered as in its infancy towards such a stage. On the other hand, decentralization of the nation state in order to emancipate and empower local communities through participation is emphazised. In the latter, the centralized governance system, which is usually based on a top-down management, is moving towards a de-centralized governance system that promotes bottom-up management. In this context, the concept of adaptive co-management is yet another step closer to the empowerment of people, to promote people’s participation in activities which are affecting their lives. It is in this context that in the current discourse of governance, many researchers discuss the concept of adaptive co-management as a pre-requisite for increasing the flexibility of governance in addressing problems interlinked to social and ecological resilience.

The concept of adaptive co-management can also be viewed as a combination of operationalization of adaptive management (Holling, 1978) and adaptive governance (Dietz et. al, 2003). Further, it is argued that due to incompleteness of our knowledge of complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems, management should be adaptive and include means of learning about ecosystem dynamics from policy experiments (Holling, 1978 and others, 2000). This new management approach, adaptive co-management, is thus defined as “flexible community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by, and working with, various organizations at different levels.” (Olsson, 2004).

1.1. Background of the study

Through my past experiences, literary surveys and interviews, I have come to the understanding that the political and socio-economic environment required for adaptive co-management in different cultures can vary. Further, the goal of social-ecological resilience may still be achieved without having all the essential components of adaptive co-management; for instance, good results can be 12(91) reached with minimum stakeholder participation in the decision making as opposed to maximum stakeholder participation; there are informal ways that are common to rural communities in Sri Lanka, which consists of social norms and practices that facilitates cross-scale information flows and fill up the gaps in national legislations and management plans for the implementation of programmes for sustainable use of natural resources. These metaphors bring us to the nucleus of this study; social-ecological resilience and indications for emerging trends and indications for adaptive co-management to identify different ways to attain/maintain social-ecological resilience.

In this context, I explored strengths and weaknesses in the in the current governance system of Sinharaja and its effects on the social-ecological resilience in the study area. It comprise of Kudawa village, a peripheral village located in the northwestern boundary of Sinharaja Forest in Sri Lanka and the part of Sinharaja forest adjacent to the village (Figures 1, 2 & 3). I also looked for indications or emerging trends that adaptive co-management at work. This was done in order to identify the informal ways which could contribute to maintaining social-ecological resilience in the study area. These investigations were done in the larger arena considering 1971, 1978, 1988, 1994 and 1998 as significant years. For detailed chronology of events relating to study area refer Table 1.

See Appendix 1 for descriptive note on the historical background of forests and forest policies in modern times (starting from the British colonial period in the 19th century). For those who are not familiar with the historical developments in the polity and society of Sri Lanka, this section presents a holistic view of the background.

1.2. Historical background of Sinharaja and the area surrounding it including Kudawa

Until the 14th century, most of the southwest region of the island where the rain forests are situated were uninhabited. There are records of human occupation in the forest since the 1800s. Evidence for private ownership of land in the eastern parts of the forest from the days of the Kandyan Kings th is indicated by a late 19 century deed of gift. (Abeysinghe, 1979).

The early records of Sinharaja appear in a Dutch map (Figure 4) of 1722 (Brohier and Paulusz, 1951). Based on this map, several explorations had been carried out to investigate commercial viability for different types of plantation crops, such as coffee, tea, etc. and exploitation for timber. Most of the forest area, which is presently called Sinharaja, was originally declared a Forest Reserve in 1875 under the Waste Lands Ordinance by the British colonial government.

Currently there are about 39 villages around the forest, including two villages (Indigaswila and Warukandeniya) inside the forest. At least 12 of these villages have an ancient history which dates back more than 400 years, and some have originated as land grants for services to the Crown. (Dela, 2003). These ancient villages with time and population growth spread into nearby areas for settlement and permanent agriculture which had given rise to further villages. The first modern day surveying of villages to document human settlements was carried out by the government in 1930s (IUCN, 1993). Since then, settlements have expanded on the borders as well as towards interior. The total population in these villages is around 5,000.

Out of these villages, 30 are gazetted (formally recognized and recorded) and two un-gazetted (recognized but not formally recorded). In addition, there are several unknown number of settlements, which are considered “illegal” due to lack of documents to prove legal ownership, and settlements established in encroached state land. However, some of these settlements said to have existed for several generations. This could be a source for local ecological knowledge (LEK) and social memory of these communities could be harnessed for better management of social-ecological resilience.

1.3. Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase I 13(91)

This plan was originally referred to as the “Conservation Plan for Sinharaja Forest” and was prepared under WWF/IUCN Project 3307 – “Consolidation of the Sinharaja Forest of Sri Lanka” (WWF/IUCN, 1986).

The Forest Department in collaboration with environmentalists, researchers and other relevant government officials formulated this plan. Technical expertise and coordination was extended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) while financial assistance came from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD). The implementation period was 1988 to 1991; but later, funding was also provided for an additional year by NORAD. (WWF/IUCN, 1986).

This Plan proposed to establish the Sinharaja Committee, under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Land and Land Development with the following objectives (WWF/IUCN, 1986):

ƒ To immediately commence administrative framework required for the implementation of the plan ƒ To identify relevant suitably qualified resource persons to collect data, carry out boundary surveys, marking and other field activities, and to regularly monitor the same ƒ To serve as a lobby which would influence ministerial decision making process regarding all forms of land use in the buffer zone as well as relevant parts of the peripheral zone ƒ To periodically evaluate the progress (also to identify urgent needs, insufficient resources, etc. so that appeals could be made to national and or international organizations for procurement of such resources, without hindering smooth progress)

1.4. Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase II

The original title of the afore-mentioned document is “Management Plan for the Conservation of the Sinharaja Forest (Phase II)” and was prepared by IUCN in collaboration with the Forest Department in 1993. It was implemented from 1994 to 1998.

Noting the failures, particularly the static view point on environmental conservation, this plan was formulated revising the earlier plan (IUCN, 1993). With the influence of IUCN the Forest Department noted the issues at hand. Thus, a revision was proposed and the task was assigned to two consultants, a forest ecologist (who had been a former Conservator of Forests at the Forest Department) and a Socio-economist in 1993. It was an IUCN’s initiative in collaboration with the Forest Department and the Ministry of Lands, Irrigation and Mahaweli Development. Financial assistance was allocated by NORAD. (IUCN, 1993).

Some of the key recommendations of the plan were (IUCN, 1993):

ƒ Re-define the boundary to include natural forests lying contiguously with Sinharaja (state lands as well as by acquiring private land) and establishing a Sinharaja Conservation Area (SCA) ƒ Re-demarcate boundary excluding long standing encroachments ƒ Complete boundary marking commenced in Phase I ƒ Relocate those who are living inside the forest in the buffer zone ƒ Setting apart core areas with no human trespassing is allowed ƒ Restricted and controlled use of non-wood resources such as kitul tapping and collection of edible items permitted ƒ Regulated use of foot paths to cross the forest ƒ Strengthen physical protection of SCA by deploying additional staff, using community- based organizations (CBOs) and organizing local vigilance groups 14(91) ƒ Make necessary legislative and administrative changes to implement the recommendations for both SCA and the buffer zone ƒ Provide support for CBOs, securing their active involvement in the implementation of the plan ƒ Discourage development work in the buffer zone that might be detrimental to the protection of Sinharaja

1.5. Problem Statement

The impact of human actions on the environment and the natural phenomena on humanity emanates the need to consider social-ecological resilience as a single concept, rather than separately as social resilience and ecological resilience. At present, the governance system related to forest resources, which have developed over the years with changing protection regimes, both national and international, has opened up new vistas for sustainable development in the study area. (In this context I define the term “protection regimes” as legislations, acts, laws, rules, regulations and procedures, as well as management plans which would have an impact on Sinharaja forest). Consideration for local ecological knowledge (LEK) and traditional rights of local people (villagers), local participation, multi-stakeholder participation, decentralized decision making, cross-scale sharing of information, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research and transparency in all aspects of processes are the key elements in the process towards achieving sustainable development. However, the evolving protection regimes have its own implications which are increasing the complexity of social-economic-ecological system.

In this context, the issue (problem) I saw in the chosen study area was two-fold; the impact of protection regimes on the social-ecological resilience at present and what could be in store for the future, while being aware of the complexities that exists in the social-ecological system. In this context, I placed the issue in the broader framework, considering complexities due to changes in the natural environment as well as political and socio-economic changes which increase decision stakes and uncertainties.

The study focuses on Kudawa village and the part of Sinharaja forest adjacent to the village (Figure 1, 2 & 3). Villagers of Kudawa used to be greatly dependent on the forest five decades ago. However, by now their livelihoods have changed much due to changing protection regimes over the years. These protection regimes have evolved not only due to national consciousness or needs, but also due to international environmental trends and as a part of donor-assisted programmes in development activities. An example for national forest policy being influenced by donors is the recommendation for timber exploitation in wet zone forests under the Five-Year Master Plan and the Investment Plan for the Forestry Sector formulated by the Forest Department in 1986 with Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) and the World Bank assistance. Due to opposition from all quarters, logging in all natural forests was forced to be banned.

The first significant turning point in the relationship between Kudawa and Sinharaja dawned in 1971 when the government sponsored mechanized logging commenced in Sinharaja. (Figure 5). This initiative was launched to supply timber for the newly established plywood and chipwood industries. The timber potential for these industries was assessed by surveys done between 1950s and 1960s by Hunting Survey Corporation, Canada, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and a Rumanian company (Ghosh, 1973).

Refer Table 2 below for a quick run through of important events that left strong impact on the social-ecological resilience of the study area.

Table 2 - Crucial events that left strong impact on the social-ecological resilience of the study area 15(91)

1971 Commencement of government sponsored mechanized logging Declaration of 2500 ha of Forest Reserve as IUCN-IBP Strict Reserve with full protection for flora and fauna 1978 Abandoning logging Declaration as an International Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB) - 6,091 ha. of Forest Reserve and 2,773 ha. of Proposed Reserve, totalling 8,864 ha. (now 11,187 ha) 1986 Formulation of Conservation Plan for the Sinharaja Forest Five-Year Master Plan and Investment Plan for the Forestry Sector with the assistance from World Bank and Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) 1988 Declaration as a National Heritage Wilderness Area (NHWA) - 7,648.2 ha Declaration as a World Heritage Site (WHS) - 8,864 ha (now 11,187 ha) 1988 – 1992 Implementation of Conservation Plan for the Sinharaja Forest formulated in 1986 (Phase I) (Phase I) 1994 – 1998 Management Plan for Conservation of the Sinharaja Forest (Phase II) (Phase II)

Sinharaja forest’s special status as an International Man and Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site has contributed to the formulation of Sinharaja Conservation Plan in 1986 and a subsequent revision in 1993. Both documents highlight the salient features of importance of people’s participation in the management of Sinharaja, local ecological knowledge (LEK), biodiversity conservation, development of buffer zones, multiple use of forest lands in fulfilling the needs of people, traditional use of non-wood forest produce and rights of local peoples, cross-scale collaboration among stakeholders at different levels, and importance of the forest in terms of ecosystem goods and services it provides and as well as its high potential as a gene pool. The 1993 document clearly states as it final and 8th principle that “environment and forest sustainability are closely linked to social sustainability” (IUCN, 1993). The two plans had been prepared in line with World Conservation Strategy (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1980) and its successor “Caring for the Earth: Strategy for Sustainable Living” (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1980), in cooperating the aforementioned salient features.

The project period for the management plan of Phase II ended in 1998 and funding for various activities that promoted participation of local communities ended as well; a factor that had brought together the officers of the Forest Department (FD) and the villagers together too ended there. Yet the process of globalization continues to bring challenges and complexities, particularly in economical and environmental spheres and it is indeed a test for the social-ecological resilience of the study area, of which the relationship between the Forest Officers and villagers forms the crux. This is taken up in the discussion section of this paper.

Further, the study is done in the context where Sri Lankans have enjoyed a welfare system for over five decades, even without majority of the population not having to pay income taxes (either they are government servants or the income is low) or evading taxes (politicians, big business, etc.). This has given rise to increased dependency on the government for all aspects in life (source: pre- knowledge and the interview with a former Deputy Conservator of Forest). None of the governments that came in to power during the period dared to make total radical changes to these welfare measures. It should be reckoned with that in the Sri Lankan context, particularly in Kudawa, dependency of villagers on the forest for livelihood is now minimum; thus, the possibility of a gradual and conditional transfer of full responsibility to communities for all the various aspects of forest management is rather difficult.(Dela, 2003).

1.5.1. Problem domain 16(91)

The term “problem domain” is defined as “an entire group of people and or organizations implicated in a common problem” (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). This view is further discussed in the theoretical framework in the section 2.

The problem domain in this context consists of all organizations and individuals who are involved at the local level in this social-ecological system, Ratnapura District Forest Office, Ratnapura District Secretariat and Kalawana Divisional Secretariat at regional level. The social and ecological system at the local level consist of the Kudawa Forest Office, a shared office by Grama Niladhari (GN) and the Samurdhi Niladhari (SN), Forest Guides’ Association, Death Donation and Welfare Society, Samurdhi Society (consisting of recipients of Samurdhi welfare benefits), Rural Development Society, Sewa Lanka - a national level NGO (has medicinal plant nurseries and has also helped when flash floods and landslides occurred in May 2003, primary school and two private eco-lodges (Disithuru Eco-Lodge and Blue Magpie Lodge). The ecosystem at the local level consists of the forest areas where the trails are and other forest and buffer zone areas used by villagers. The Kudawa village is in the buffer zone. It also encompasses impact of agriculture and agricultural practices of the villagers on the ecosystem. For better understanding of the problem and for a holistic view of the social-ecological system of the larger problem domain and actors at international, national, regional and local levels refer Table 3. Structure of the Forest Department coming down to Kudawa Forest Office level is given in Table 4.

1.6. Aim of the study

Aim of this study is mainly to investigate emerging trends towards a process of adaptive co- management which could contribute to maintain social-ecological resilience in the study area. Another aspect considered is to tease out opportunities/possibilities for self-organization within the study area which could be threshold in its governance. Also, the networks and cross-scale interactions among the stakeholders in post-1998 scenario is examined in depth with the intention of exploring whether there is an emerging trend or indications for adaptive co-management in the management of Sinharaja. It is also intended to review the constraints and opportunities that could be harnessed, the governance systems, methods and tools used in tackling conflicts, uncertainty and change, as well as the adaptive capacity and sources for maintaining/enhancing social-ecological resilience in the study area.

In this context, the study is mainly focussed on finding out how the social-ecological resilience in the study area has changed and the impact of protection regimes and governance systems on the livelihood of the villagers of Kudawa.

Kudawa village and adjacent forest of Sinharaja was chosen as the case study due to several specific reasons. To begin with, Sinharaja is an International Man and Biosphere Reserve as well as a World Heritage Site. Sinharaja has a unique biodiversity; the rain forests of Sri Lanka share many features common to those of Malayan Archipelago, but contain many distinct features due to its geological heritage; being a part of Gondwanaland and later the Deccan Plate, are considered as the two main reasons for Sri Lanka inheriting the highest biodiversity in whole of Asia. Among the rain forests in Sri Lanka, Sinharaja is the relatively most undisturbed span of primary forest and is the last patch of sizeable lowland evergreen rain forest still remaining intact in the island. (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993). Meanwhile, the main reason to choose Kudawa out of 39 or so villages in the periphery of Sinharaja, is that the main access road to Sinharaja was cut through Kudawa in 1965 to facilitate logging in late 1960s and early 1970s; it gave the villagers who were until then largely dependant on the forest resources for their livelihood, new socio-economic opportunities. Further, this village also had most exposure to external influence and it appears that the villagers have been quite socially resilient to a multitude of challenges to their livelihoods emerging from changing protection regimes as well as other external drivers. Above all, they have been willing partners in 17(91) the conservation process (Urugodawatte, 1995). Another aspect was that the villagers of Kudawa, similar to many communities living on the periphery of forests in the tropics, possess local ecological knowledge (LEK) through experiencing the forest for generations. Some of the villagers in Kudawa also had the rare opportunity of working with the researchers which enabled them to supplement LEK with scientific knowledge.

Efforts were also made to identify salient features of the connected governance practices as outlined in the two management plans and their implementation, which have bearing upon livelihoods of the villagers of Kudawa.

1.7. Research Questions

In the context of changing protection regimes considering 1971, 1978, 1988, 1994 and 1998 as threshold years;

(A) Why and how the governance system of Sinharaja changed?

(B) What is the impact of the current governance system on the social-ecological resilience of the study area?

2. Theoretical Framework

Today, environmental management problems are more complex with higher decision stakes and higher uncertainty than ever before and thus it is impossible to manage such issues using the traditional natural science approach based on experiments and observations and with the emphasis on quantitative aspects. It was in this context that Funtowicz and Ravetz (1992) introduced a problem-solving model describing high uncertainty and high decision stakes which was described as “Post-normal Science”. It is a way to deal with uncertain facts, values in dispute, high stakes where decisions are urgent and to bridge the gap between scientific expertise and the concerned public. It deals with systems uncertainties at technical, methodological and epistemological levels. Uncertainty is managed at the technical level when standard routines are adequate and these are mostly derived from statistics. At the methodological level, more complex aspects of information, as value (quality) or reliability are dealt with and personal judgements depending on high-level skills are required; this is where the professional consultancy comes in. Finally, the epistemological level is involved when uncertainty that cannot be solved is at the centre of the problem (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992).

Environmental problems are of course linked to ecosystems. Human actions are causing tremendous impact on the sustenance of the ecological systems, particularly by ways of controlling and changing ecological systems as well as discharging effluents to the environment. Hence, analysing the issues in the broader framework of social–ecological system (SES) is necessary with the socio- economic and ecological aspects of sustainable development, which are all integrated parts of the system; meaning, that one cannot separately analyse the social system and ecological system in a given problem context.

The concept of resilience, which is defined as the capacity to buffer change, learn and develop, creates a framework for understanding how to sustain and enhance adaptive capacity in a complex world of rapid transformations. (Folke, 2002). We, humans, as part of the natural environment, depend on ecological systems for survival and continuously impact the ecosystems in which we live, from the local to global scale. Resilience is a property of these linked social-ecological systems (SES).

18(91) Ecological resilience has been defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can be experienced before a system moves into a different state and different set of controls (Holling, 1973). Where as, social resilience has been defined as the ability of human communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure, such as environmental variability or social, economic and political upheaval (Adger, 2000). Social-ecological resilience encompasses the magnitude of change a system can undergo and still retain essentially the same function, structure and identity, the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization and express capacity for learning and adaptation. (Berkes et al. 2003 and Olsson, 2003). In this context, the anthropocentric concept of social- ecological resilience is being used as a way to stress the interrelated coupling between social and ecological systems. The concept of social-ecological resilience suggests how the integrated socio- economic and ecological dimensions of sustainable development are linked (Hahn, 2004).

When faced with disturbances, social–ecological systems react in different ways trying to retain resilience. Evidence suggests that major ecosystems can shift to alternative and contrasting stable states depending on environmental conditions. Scheffer, et. al. (2001) propose a theoretical model for these regime shifts. This is based on the idea that as external conditions such as inputs of nutrients, climate or loss of species diversity change gradually over time the ecosystem response may not be linear but instead may collapse into an alternative state once a critical point is reached. These 'folds' often occur suddenly without warning and prior monitoring shows little change in state. Furthermore, to induce a switchback requires more than just the restoration of the environmental conditions immediately prior to collapse. Instead a second critical point must be reached before reversing to the original state occurs. The two states can be thought of having 'basins of attraction' separated by an unstable equilibrium. (Scheffer, et.al, 2001).

“Local ecological knowledge” (LEK) is a vital actor that contributes for maintenance of social ecological resilience. Here, LEK can be defined as a mix of scientific and practical knowledge and is context-specific and often involves a belief component. Further, it is knowledge and consciousness on the ecology of the local ecological system, possessed by a specific group of people. (Olsson, 2004). Formal and informal norms and rules that enable appropriate responses to signals from the environment are termed as “social memory” (McIntosh, 2000). This is an important ingredient in maintaining LEK.

When discussing the interaction between social system dynamics and ecosystems, Trist et.al (1983) as cited in Gunderson and Holling (2002), refers to unstable environmental arenas as “inter- organizational problem domains”. The destruction of the ozone layer is an example (Haas, 1990 as cited in Gunderson and Holling, 2002). These domains are characterized by stakeholders with a wide range of influences, some powerful and some powerless, and having many differences in interests related to the problem which frequently can be conflicting. Furthermore, those who are most affected most often have less influence or power. Thus, the power wielders would determine the future discourse in how to reorganize the domain (Hardy et. al., 1998 and Gunderson and Holling, 2002). At the micro-level, to address these complexities, the managers have to understand how to analyse problem domains structurally and dynamically, the role of collaboration in transforming the domain and how values and social capital formation can help management.

Social capital is defined here as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources that can be mobilized through social relationships and memberships in networks” (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). “It focuses on value of relationships for individuals, groups and organizations who are a part of the domain. Social capital is built up through investing in social relationships. Trust plays a decisive role in this context. For an instance, a group can support another group or an individual by way of giving information, contacts, free labour, listening or by any other means. Depending on the history of the relationship (whether it is old and tested or new and untested), investment can be high or low yielding, secure or risky, fixed or fluid” (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). However the source capital is based on personal exchanges and reciprocity, which endures over time; this means 19(91) that when a favour is done, and even on request if not reciprocated, the investment is lost. Usually, new and untested relationships, which are weak ties, can result in risky outcomes. But in contrary, just like risky financial investment could bring high returns, risky social capital investments too can yield large returns. In this context, manager’s intuitive, as to when to take risks and when not to, is crucial. Taking the risk depends on how much the manager trusts the actors involved, his intuitions backed by scientific reasoning and past experiences concerning the problem domain.

The social system as a part of the problem domain consists of several institutions, organizations and individuals, who have their stakes in the particular problem and are in a way compelled to come together at a certain point. The social system has both horizontal and vertical connections. The horizontal dimension contains three nested social systems: political, organizational, inter- organizational and individual. (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). The levels of the stakeholders, their influences and power, as well the cross-scale connections are important in analysing the problem. Vertical connections are the international conventions, covenants, protocols, national legislations, regional laws and procedures and local practices, rituals and norms that have bearing upon the problem domain. Both these horizontal and vertical dimensions have their own dynamics which a manager can exploit.

Usually, a problem domain such as deforestation of tropical forests, are generally nested in a larger framework of culture (social and historical context) as well as institutional polity that may also promote commercial logging and agriculture; both these (institutional polity and culture) can contribute to facilitate or impede collaboration at the domain level. For an example, in a culture that values collectivism or unity, rather than the power of the individual over the other, it would be much easier to negotiate differences among the stakeholders. Similarly, if the culture places high value on environment, one common ground to start negotiations is already in place for the stakeholders. However, it must be noted that cultures, just as they would have different attitudes in up-holding environmental values, could also have different ways of collaborating when it comes to problem solving (Trompenaars 1994, Berkes, 2000 and Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

Let me cite an example from Sri Lanka. There is hardly any attention given to the study of environmental science or sustainable development in the education system of Sri Lanka. Even at university level, it is a subject of choice, and available to students mostly coming from a science background (University of Colombo offers a Masters in Environmental Science, an interdisciplinary course, which is opened to any one with a degree, since 1993). There are occasional articles in the media and programmes on the television, mostly on the importance of conserving the environment, rather than on sustainable use.

When the Five-year Master Plan and the Investment Plan for the Forestry Sector was formulated in 1986, which included logging of wet zone natural forests, there were severe protests by academics, environmental NGOs and above all, the general public. Although the protest was mainly to save the wet zone forests, the final out come was to ban logging in all natural forests in the country; a remarkable achievement in recent times for the Sri Lankan public. Why did the general public become so concerned and aware of the consequences, given their limited educational background on environment? The answer is probably being found in the Buddhist cultural traditions of Sri Lanka.

The development of organized forestry and protected area management in Sri Lanka has a long history. One of the first wildlife sanctuaries in the world was established in Sri Lanka in the 3rd century B.C. Rules for the protection of the forests and sustainable use of forest products were in force as far back as 2nd century B.C. Such considerations for the environment emerged with the Buddhist philosophy and associated ethics; Buddhist philosophy, a religion which has been introduced to Sri Lanka in the 3rd century B.C., and continues to shape its development and cultural heritage. As Buddha preached in the 6th century B.C. “the forest is a peculiar organism of unlimited 20(91) kindness and benevolence that makes no demands on its sustenance and extends generously the products of its life activity; it affords protection to all beings offering shade even to the axeman who destroys it” (Wijesinha, 1995). The Buddhist philosophy and traditions have instilled deep respect for all living beings, including trees, amongst Sri Lankans and has thus paved the way for the protection of forests. Such traditions, which has existed over two millennia has fostered respect for nature and sustainable use of forests in the mindset of the Sri Lankans. Buddhism also encouraged collectivism and harmony forming a common ground for collaboration among stakeholders. This is evident from the organizational arrangements on sharing water of huge networks of irrigation systems that dotted the landscape of Sri Lanka for over a millennium from around 200 B.C. to 1250 A.D. (Brohier, 1934 and Siriweera, 1978). These arrangements are documented on rock inscriptions found near most of the major ancient irrigational works as well as in historical chronicles such as “Mahavamsa”(Great Chronicle) (Brohier, 1934) and “Chulavamsa” (Minor Chronicle”) (Brohier, 1934 and Geiger, 1992).

On the other hand, the value of scientific knowledge also could create a launching pad to commence proactive action among stakeholders (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Further, conditions that are imposed due to judicial decisions could also result in required destabilization which would unravel innovative ways of engagement (Gray, et. al., 1998).

Scale is synonymous with level. In social–ecological systems, scale refers to action/events occurring at different levels; it could be local level, regional, national and international. Cross-scale interaction of actors/elements in different scales makes the social–ecological system more complex. Horizontally also there could be cross-scale interactions; for instance two forest patches can act as a support areas at time of disturbance; one area which would have the same plant species as the disturbed (i.e. by fire) area, with the help of wind or animals or birds can carry seeds required for regeneration of the lost plants in the disturbed patch. In a social system an example is that two villages bordering a forest having interactions in sharing local ecological knowledge pertaining to sustainable use of forest produce. Further, there are temporal and spatial scales; series of occurrences chronologically and distribution or expansion in spatial terms, respectively.

The dynamics of what takes place at one scale influencing what is happening at other scales are considered as cross-scale effects. These are complex, as they depend not only on size-dependent factors, but also on the particular dynamics which are currently prevailing at each scale: the one being considered and those that are embedded in it or enfold it. Some indicate a co-management approach, where bureaucracies collaborate with local user groups across scales. Others recommend a nested approach that provides a "tenurial shell" for local use groups, buffering them from the influences of international and national markets and policies and providing space for traditional management practices. The real challenge arises when dealing with systems that are not only cross- scale but dynamic, where the nature of cross-scale influences in the linked ecological/economic/ social system changes over time, creating fundamental problems for division of responsibility between centralized and decentralized agents. (Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

The scientists have come up with a management system that works at different scales and involve multiple stakeholders who share management powers and responsibilities. It is also characterized by flexibility and dynamism and has the capacity to self-organize. This management system is termed “adaptive co-management” (Olsson, 2004).

Nevertheless, dilemma of sustainable use of natural resources is that, managers have to engage in adaptive decision making, rather than rational decision making (March and Heath, 1994 in Gunderson and Holling, 2002); March’s first rule of adaptive decision making says “treat self as a hypothesis…Treat decision making a less process of deduction and negotiation and more of a process of gently upsetting pre-conceptions of what is desirable or appropriate”. This is also the shift from “government” to “governance”; to move away from assuming stability and explaining 21(91) change (adversarial) to explaining stability and assuming change (collaborative). (Elena Ostrom’s Principles). In the development discourse, the term governance encompasses all that relates to how issues of public interests are managed. It is also sometime associated with the notion of “regime”, while sometimes with the concept of “global order” (Smouts, 1998). Governance system deals with the processes and systems by which an organization or society operate. Here system implies organized, interdependent and interrelated parts serving the common purpose of governance. (adapted from (http://css.snre.umich.edu/1_8_approach.htm - 29/05/05).

The afore-mentioned concepts all have a bearing upon analyzing the case study. Within this broader framework, considering the limitations in carrying out the research (see section 3.2), two specific research questions were selected to be addressed that concerns the changes in the governance systems of Sinharaja forest and the impact of the current governance system on the social ecological resilience of the study area (see section 1.7).

Having narrowed down the focus of the study to two pertinent questions as mentioned above, the main concept which is useful to address these are the concept of governance and the concept of social ecological resilience.

The concept of governance has been used as the broad framework, which encompasses a longer time line to provide a basis for an effective analysis of social ecological resilience of the study area. The concept of governance also has provided the forum to look at cross-scale of influences connecting international, national, regional and local levels which had affected social ecological resilience. The application of the concept of social ecological resilience is a starting point in looking at what is in store for the future of not only of Sinharaja forest but for people of Kudawa village, particularly in the absence of previous similar studies. The concept is also no doubt would be a valuable tool for future researchers to understand and promote sustainable development in all other peripheral villages.

The other most directly relevant concepts are the concept of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) and the concept of adaptive co-management. The concept of LEK has been used in study, both as a tool and an indicator in measuring the social ecological resilience in the study area. The concept of adaptive co-management is applied to the case study to explore possible indications for adaptive co- management, with the view of understanding the relationship between adaptive co-management towards social ecological resilience, in the political, socio-economic and cultural context in the study area.

3. Methodology

The study area has been subjected to different protection regimes with a multitude of administrative and management structures and governance systems; further, there is a wide range of inter- dependent variables that could distinguish the current changes. This scenario also makes it more appropriate to interpret, rather than analyze causal explanations. The historical approach emphasises that “the world as the result of historical events and contingencies” (Mc Allister, 2002) while the structural approach highlights “the world as a consequence of systematic constraints and regularities”. Epistemologically, it is the historical approach that requires us to re-trace the historical events to the past in order to ascertain how the world has acquired the current structure; it values particularity and complexity and calls for differentiation, concern for particulars and historical sensitivity. In analysing the data of this study, the need to trace the historical developments of the protection regimes to ascertain how the current governance system has developed over time, has made it practical to use the historical approach rather than the structural approach.

22(91) Accordingly, the changing administrative and management structures and governance systems related to Sinharaja is discussed in order to analyse how different protection regimes, government policies on resource utilization, demands created by increasing population growth and international trends has triggered regime shifts, and its impacts on the social-ecological resilience of the study area.

Therefore, I selected the methods considering the importance of understanding the historical developments and related governance systems affecting the social-ecological resilience in the study area.

3.1. Methods

Methods used are literary surveys and reviews, interviews and discussions carried out by myself mostly at the local level, with a few at regional level and national level, and reflections on past experiences in Kudawa.

3.1.1 Literary Surveys and Review of policy documents and reports

I used literary surveys and reviewed policy documents to find out the documented historical developments and landmark events which have challenged or seemingly challenged the social- ecological system of the study area. I also used it as an entry point to prepare myself for the interviews to understand the current scenario and future opportunities and threats. Further, it also enabled me as to prepare myself as the interviewer; to prepare the guideline questionnaires and frame appropriate specific questions when necessary. Above all it helped me to conduct/facilitate discussion at local level through dialogue and discussions.

The Forest Department officials, academics and NGO personnel whom I interviewed also assisted in accessing reference material, both published and unpublished. Library of the Forest Department, some of the Forester Magazines published by Wildlife and Nature Conservation Society since 1890’s, National Science Foundation library (where the National Man and Biosphere - MAB Committee is) and IUCN library resources were reviewed.

3.1.2. Interviews and Discussions

Interviews were conducted and data verification and analysis was done using Kvale’s seven-staged interview investigation method (Kvale, 1996) as a guideline. The interviews were mainly conducted between 12th to 25th April 2005 with five groups of actors (noting that group 1 and 2 members can also be members of 3 or 4):

Table 5 - Interview groups and number of persons interviewed in each group

1. Academics, bureaucrats and NGO personnel involved in formulating Conservation Plans for Sinharaja – 14 interviewees. 2. Other academics and national and regional NGO personnel involved in conservation/ protection/management of Sinharaja – 5 interviewees. 3. Forest Department Officers (Conservators and Deputy Conservators of Forests since 1970s) – 7 interviewees. 4. Regional level stakeholders (Ratnapura District Forest Officer, Ratnapura Government Agents/District Secretaries from 1970s, Divisional Secretary of Kalawana, politicians, etc.) – 8 interviewees. 5. Local level stakeholders (Principal of Primary School in Kudawa, staff of the Forest Office in Kudawa including Forester and Beat Officers, members of the Forest Guides’ 23(91) Association, Samurdhi Niladhari of Kudawa Wasama, Grama Niladhari of Kudawa Wasama, villagers) – 27 interviewees.

Table 6 - Number of persons interviewed at different social scales/levels

Scale/level No. Comments Local level 27 Regional level 8 National level 19 7 from Forest Department, 8 academics, 4 NGO personnel International level 0 Total 54

Interviews were conducted to verify the historical developments mentioned above, how the villagers felt about the changes and their future ambitions in the context of social-ecological resilience in the study area. This was particularly important since there are no previous studies related to governance and social-ecological resilience for this area. Further, interviews carried out with the same persons in different environments (alone or in the presence of different combination of villagers) did generate different answers and additional information. The trust and social capital I have harnessed during my previous research in the study area, personal connections and the rapport built during the five days of interviewing/discussing helped me to understand some of the underlining differences and subtle conflicts among the villagers.

3.1.2.1.Interview process

I prepared a guiding questionnaire as a reference point. The questionnaire is at Appendix 2. Approximately 15 days were used for interviews. At the local level in Kudawa where five days were spent, interviews were much informal and unstructured. Rather than asking a set of questions, open discussions were held. Those were focussed on their relationship with the Forest Department, importance of the forests as they viewed and experienced it, what they expect from the Forest Department and other government entities, how their lives changed over time with different protection regimes and their participation in activities related to the forest including participation in the activities of the two management plans. Attempts were made particularly through the discussions to tease out their social memory of threshold years - as they identified. Most discussions took place outdoors, seated/standing under a tree. As for the interviews with officials of the Forest Department, I was able to interview the Sinharaja Forester (Head of Administration), the Range Forest Officer, a Beat Officer, a Field Forest Assistant and 3 watchers (guards).

At regional level, interviews were held with Divisional Secretary of Kalawana, District Forest Officer of Ratnapura, three former Government Agents/District Secretaries of Ratnapura District and three politicians. These were more formal and short interviews to identify their roles in formulation and implementation of management plans, and to brainstorm on changes in threshold years.

Two days were spent at the University of Peradeniya, interviewing and discussing with academics who have done studies on Sinharaja ecosystem as well as conducted socio-economic surveys. Six days were spent interviewing ex- and current Conservators and Deputy Conservators of Forests, other academics, national level NGO personnel and referencing in relevant libraries.

I also taped the interviews at the village as well as at national and regional levels. I also took down notes of important information in English (interviews with officials were usually in English or a mix of English and Sinhala and with the villagers it was only in Sinhala). Purpose of the interview was explained and permission was obtained prior to taping, as well as permission to quote them. 24(91) This was particularly important when discussing with current Forest Department employees. Interviews were more exploratory rather than oriented towards testing a hypothesis. Later on, tapes were listened to and compared with the notes and key points were summarized. Later on telephone interviews also were done to clarify or supplement data to triangulate information.

3.1.2.2.Anonymity of interviewees

Anonymity of the interviewees is maintained in this study to respect the privacy, as per guidelines of the Stockholm University. But yet, those who know the case would be able to identify them. I also wish to note here that in the Sri Lankan context, particularly the people I interviewed were not seeking anonymity. Particularly, when I discussed this issue with the ex-Conservators of Forests whom I interviewed, their opinion was that revealing the identity of the interviewees (of course with their permission) would enhance the credibility of my empirical data. Another aspect is that for the local people, mentioning their names in a publication is a recognition and appreciation of their knowledge and social status.

3.1.3. Reflection on previous experiences

My previous research experience in anthropological studies in Kudawa, familiarity with the villagers, the terrain, social and cultural landscape, as well as awareness on the local colloquial terminology made it easier to obtain more reliable information from the villagers. Information was triangulated with other sources such as reports, policy documents, maps, inventories, journals of Government Agents/District Secretaries, etc. whenever available. On the other hand, my position as Counsellor at the Sri Lanka Embassy in Stockholm did facilitate in getting in touch with higher official at the Forest Department at short notice and to have lengthy informal interviews and discussions. However, in Kudawa it did not matter to them; the only thing being important to them were that I have relatives living close by and whom many of them knew. Although these circumstances facilitated gathering my empirical data, I also feel that for the same reasons, some could have withheld or provided wrong or misleading information. Anyway, I tried as far as possible to triangulate the empirical data.

3.3. Limitations

Considering the entire forest together with all the villages bordering and within the forest as the social-ecological system would pave the way for a comprehensive analysis of governance system affecting the Sinharaja and its environs as a whole social-ecological system in a holistic manner. Such a holistic approach would also enable to come up with more effective and efficient mechanisms and management practices geared towards resilience in the social-ecological system. Further, such approach would also create opportunities and influences required for policy changes at regional and national levels. However, I was compelled to focus on Kudawa village in the buffer zone and the adjacent forest areas, which I could roughly identify as areas used by the villagers, due to time factor and the scope of the study.

Limitations in time and space also create an artificial difference in the scale of the social and ecological system. Although for the study purposes, only Kudawa village was selected, there are four other villages in Kudawa Wasama (the Grama Niladhari and Samurdhi Niladhari are both represented at Wasama level). On the ecological system, the scale is broader, encompassing a larger forest area. In this context, it would be useful to understand the administrative structure coming down from national and provincial (decentralized) levels (refer Figure 6). It is difficult to clearly demarcate the area which is exclusively used by the villagers of Kudawa since it is not used only by them. Also villagers of the other four villages in Kudawa Wasama and other surrounding and bordering villagers can (and sometimes do) enter the forest and reach the same areas. Considering the three-kilometre wide buffer zone around Sinharaja also has its own implications. 25(91)

Although I wanted to interview people individually, it was not possible; particularly since I was accompanied by a person from the Forest Guides’ Association and interviews were held out doors; when it is held out doors, many come and join, even without asking them to join. I must say that it is quite common practice in most rural places in Sri Lanka. The villagers consider it as trying their best to help the outsider (in my case, to provide me with all information they can think of, whether it is relevant to my study or not). Had I stayed over night for several days and had visited individual homes without the Guide, it could have been possible for me to have interviews individually. Since the time was short I was compelled to obtain the assistance of the Guide to find people.

Another limitation of this study is that up to now, there have been no studies done on governance aspects and hence no previous studies on its implications on social-ecological resilience of the study area which can be used for a comparison. Senior officials of the Forest Department as well as academics who have done extensive research on ecological and socio-economic studies confirmed this. Thus, analysis is based mainly on the interviews conducted with different groups of stakeholders in the past and present and background information that could be obtained from various policy documents, reports, etc. In the absence of similar previous studies, it is of paramount importance to examine the historical processes involving different protection regimes of Sinharaja, and connected administration and management structures and governance systems and their workings, which would shed light on the process. However, again due to time constraint and requirements of this study, it is not possible to critically analyse the entire historical process in depth.

Since after analysing the empirical data, I did not have a chance to go back to the field personally to verify and discuss my analysis, particularly at the local level, there could be several misinterpretations. Thus, for any one who is interested in further investigating in to the aspects I looked at in this study, I recommend that more time is spent in the village, at a stretch (approx. 1 –2 weeks at a time), and at regular intervals (approx. 3- 4 times a year) until the researcher is fully confident that he/she is fully accepted in the local community. It is also recommended that the researchers stay at accommodation belonging to the Forest Department rather than at private places, which would affect the openness in providing information, by the villagers.

4. The study area

As mentioned above in section 1.5., the study area comprise of Kudawa village, the adjacent areas in the Sinharaja forest where villagers have access to, and the areas surrounding the nature trails. 4.1. Buffer zone

A three-kilometre wide buffer zone in the periphery of Sinharaja forest has been established under the 2nd Management Plan for Sinharaja, formulated in 1993. The buffer zone includes natural forests, pinus (pinus caribae) plantations, secondary vegetation, non-forest lands, home gardens and 24 villages including Kudawa. (Bandarathillake, 1992).

Most of the land in the buffer zone is state-owned with most forested lands administered by the Forest Department while few smaller areas are administered by other governmental agencies such as the State Plantation Corporation. The forest is protected by the National Heritage and Wilderness Area (NHWA) Act which provided highest possible legal protection and forbids community activities. The Forest Ordinance governs the buffer zone, as other state forests. This permits activities such as collection of non-timber forest products in the buffer zone, but also regulates the same. (Bandarathillake, 1992).

4.2. Features of Sinharaja

26(91) Information on location, extent, physical environment and biodiversity is at Appendix 3.

4.3. Ecosystem services from Sinharaja

Ecosystem services that Sinharaja, as a rain forest, provides include natural watershed management, regulating water quality, local climate, humidity and carbon dioxide in atmosphere and trapping of moisture by layered forest vegetation which contributes to perennial water sources to river systems. Sinharaja is the starting point to most of major feeders to Ginganga and Kaluganga, two main rivers in Sri Lanka. Scientific research conducted by the University of Peradeniya also has proven that Sinharaja get 5% - 10% more rain than its surrounding non-forest areas with similar elevation and terrain, but without much trees. Within the forest the humidity is usually more than 80%. One of the reasons for this is that the vegetation is so thick that infiltration of sun light inside to the forest is as low as 5% - 15%. (Gunawardane, 2003). Refer Table 7 for temperature and relative humidity inside Sinharaja and in few selected areas outside Sinharaja. The thick and layered vegetation as well as the thick layer of organic matter on the ground prevents exposing the soil for frequent and intense rainfall. At the same time it contributes to increase ground water and controlling floods.

Table 7 – Temperature and relative humidity data available for Sinharaja and the buffer zone

Location Elevation Within Time Relative Temperature Source (m) or of humidity (centigrade) outside the the day forest Hapugoda bank 570 within 2400 93 21.0 * Baker (1937) of Napala dola 1400 83 24.4 ** (stream) Kumburugoda 390 outside 0700 95 19.4 * Merritt & Ranatunga bank of Napala 1500 59 31.1** (1959) stream Kudawa 340 outside - - 22.5 * Gunathilleke & 34.1** Gunatilleke (1981) Sinharaja 600 within - - 20.2 * Gunatilleke & 25.2 ** Gunatilleke (1981) Sinharaja 600 within 1200 87 24.0 Maheswaran (1982) Waturawa 510 within 1335 80 25.5 Maheswaran (1982) Waturawa 530 within - - 19.5 * Maheswaran (1982) 24.0 ** 19.5 * March for 23.5 ** Conservation (1984) 20.0 * 24.0 ** March for Conservation (1984) * daily minimum ** daily maximum (Source: De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993)

Physiological functioning of individual plants in the forest helps to moderate temperature, filter radiation through multi-coloured leaves, photosynthesis, etc. Pollination by insects, decomposition, seed dispersal by mammals, wind and moving flocks of birds, monkeys and mammals are also some of the ecosystem services that are accrued from Sinharaja (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993).

In Sinharaja, with layers of high density of vegetation, where competition for moisture, nutrients and sun light, pollinating and seed dispersal mechanisms are extremely high, the very survival of a species itself in the natural environment speaks for the high resilience of the species. As John Baker 27(91) recorded in 1937, among the 41 species of plants surveyed, 90% had “drip tips” which helps the rain water/moisture to drip slowly to the layer beneath and finally to the soil with low intensity, which prevents soil and nutrient erosion and silting of the vast number of streams in the forest. (Baker, 1937). Referring to Sinharaja, Baker further says “the straightness of the stems of the trees is a striking feature everywhere. Branches are only given off towards the tops, and the vertical pillar-like stems give the impression of the interior of a cathedral, which has struck observers of rainforest on other parts of the world. It presents the characteristic features of a virgin tropical rainforest.”

Effective and efficient carbon sequestration and recycling of nutrients are also an important part of the ecosystem service provided by Sinharaja. 35 micro-fungi species, which supports digestion of organic matter and recycling of nutrients, have been identified in Sinharaja (Gunawardane, 2003).

Another important service is functioning as a support area for home gardens and agro-forestry in the peripheral villages including Kudawa. Sinharaja is also becoming a source of recreation with increasing number of tourists visiting the reserve. In addition, it provides a vast range of goods, from timber for housing and furniture to, deadwood for fuel wood, from edible plants to medicinal plants and a wide array of raw materials such as resins, cane, bamboo, etc. which are used for manufacturing various products of commercial value. (Mc Dermott, 1985).

It is only since early 1980s that research has been carried out on the ecology and biodiversity in Sinharaja. Extensive studies for assessing response and functional diversity among different ecosystems within Sinharaja are yet to be initiated. Quantitative studies on small mammals carried out in early 1980s in three different habitats (natural, modified and cleared sites) found that bi- coloured rats were more sensitive to changes and thus had low response diversity as opposed to the spiny rats who were more adaptive and continued to live in disturbed areas; evidence of natural species rapidly displaced by aggressive commensals such as bandicoot and common house rats, has also been observed. (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993). Studies on avifauna, including details studies of population dynamics, feeding activities and other behavioural patterns are on going. The first research with a wildlife/biological perspective was initiated in 2000, a study to identify seed dispersal patterns by small mammals in Sinharaja. (Jayasekara, 2003).

Mixed species of bird flocks are one of the most interesting phenomenons in Sinharaja. This is considered as a strategy for improving feeding efficiency and protection against predators. Observations made on at least 100 flocks, record that 40 species of birds including 12 endemic species participate in such a flock (Table 8) and their distribution pattern corresponds closely with the stratified vegetation structure. Flocks are also accompanied by animals such as the giant squirrel, jungle squirrel, purple-faced leaf monkey and the mouse deer (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993). Anecdotal evidence indicates that when it comes to pollination and seed dispersal, there is high functional diversity among fauna of these flocks. Further, it is interesting to note that the only frugivorous species recorded is the short-nosed fruit bat, that also not in the forest, but in Kudawa. From the studies done so far and the anecdotal evidence it is indicated that it is the wind, small mammals and the birds, particularly those moving in the canopy in flocks, which are responsible for seed dispersal.

4.4. Kudawa village

Settlements in Kudawa have existed by 1930s, as evident from the first modern day surveying of villages to document human settlements which had been carried out by the government (IUCN, 1993).

The villagers living near the forest were largely a homogenous group in terms of socio–economic status prior to 1980s. Currently Kudawa has a population of 283 with 50 families. 48 families are 28(91) Sinhala and 02 are Tamil (labour migrants). All Sinhalese are Buddhists and Tamils are Hindu. There are no religious places of worship (i.e. temples) in the village. The village is a part of the buffer zone surrounding Sinharaja. (official statistics from Samurdhi Niladhari, Kudawa Wasama).

4.5. Socio-economic aspects of Kudawa

The extent to which local people are economically dependent on rain forest resources is variable but previous studies (around 1984/1985) have revealed that at least 8% of households might be completely dependent on the forest and the dependency of others vary. (De Silva, 1985).

Since the establishment of the settlements, the villagers in the periphery, including villagers of Kudawa have always depended greatly on the goods and services of the Sinharaja ecosystem for both subsistence and for income generation. A variety of plants of known benefit to man, such as kitul (Caryota urens) palm for jaggery, a sugar substitute, wewel (Calamus sp.) for cane, cardamom (lattaria ensal) as spice, hal (Shorea sp.) for flour, dun (Shorea sp.) for varnish and fumigating, venivel (Coscinium fenestratum) for medicinal purposes, keena (calophyllum) for construction of ladders and handles for agricultural implements and Hedawaka (Chaetocarpus castanocarpus & C. coreaceus) for firewood, were used intensively by villagers. In addition, a wide range of other edible plants, fruits, roots, medicinal plants, fuel wood, raw material to construct basic dwellings were extracted by the villagers. Honey collection, rice cultivation and slash and burn cultivation were also practiced within the forest reserve, although the latter two were illegal for many years. Basket weaving industry using wewel (Calamus sp.) and industries based on kitul palm (Caryota urens) were most often for income generation. The juice of the bud of the kitul flower (in addition to using for jaggery making) is also used as fermented beverage called “toddy”. (that is why the process is also called “toddy tapping” as well as “kitul tapping”). (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993 and Urugodawatte, 1995).

Kitul tapping was an important source of income to villagers in the past. In the past villagers (families) “owned” areas (traditional rights) in the forest where there were kitul trees. A permit system had been introduced during early 20th century, which allowed tapping in state owned lands, and continues to-date; Sinharaja also being a state-owned land, villagers could still tap kitul with permits inside Sinharaja. However, the NHWA Act of 1988, banned tapping inside Sinharaja. The authorities now consider it as a wrong policy, since it (kitul tapping) is a traditional right of the villagers and also facilitated the continuation of LEK while been more or less sustainable. Thus, one of the changes that is to be made when the Forest Ordnance is revised again is to restore these rights again. Permits are continued to be issued for kitul tapping in the buffer zone forestlands. (De Zoysa, 1992). No permits are required to tap kitul in one’s private land. Only permits for five trees per family is given now.

However, the dependency of the villagers on the forest, particularly of Kudawa, has decreased much now. A study in two peripheral villages including Kudawa has revealed that 95-100% of households surveyed had tea as a commercial crop, and 46 - 59 % had home-gardens ranging up to 0.4 ha. (Kathriarachchi, 2002 cited by Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2003). In a survey conducted by Dayananda (1996) on the dependency of villagers on the forests, it was observed that 33% of the annual income of villagers with low income group came from the forest resources; 20% of the income of the middle income group and in the high income group, it was only 3%. At present tea continues to be the main source of livelihood and occupation for the villagers around the Sinharaja reserve. Much of their time is spent as family labour in their small holdings, which hardly give them any time and inclination for other activities, including gathering forest products on a daily basis. Despite this, many families continue to collect some forest produce, in varying degrees and mostly for domestic use. Local people collect food items, ingredients for traditional medicines and small wood requirements for fuelwood occasionally, but very few collect items for sale. (Dela, 2003).

29(91) Refer Table 9 for information on changes in income levels and sources over the threshold years.

4.6. Infrastructure and facilities in Kudawa

According to Kalawana Headquarters Grama Niladhari at the Kalawana Divisional Secretariat (KHGN-KDS), the village has a government primary school (classes from Year 1 to Year 5) and there are about 60 students. The Sinharaja Forest Office is also located in Kudawa. Grama Niladhari & Samurdhi Niladhari’s office (they share the office), Research, Education and Extension Centre (REEC) and several other buildings belonging to the Forest Department including the ticket office (where tickets to enter Sinharaja forest are sold) and the ticket gate (where the tickets are checked just prior to the entry in to the forest) are also in Kudawa. This information was also triangulated with the information obtained from Grama Niladhari (GN) and Samurdhi Niladhari (SN) of Kudawa Wasama and Forest Officers as well as villagers of Kudawa.

KHGN-KDS confirmed that among the functioning local NGOs in the village are the Death Donation and Welfare Society, Forest Guides´ Association, Village Development Society (there are two, but only one is active). “Sinharaja Sumithuro” (Friends of Sinharaja), created by Forest Department in several villages around Sinharaja as a part of the Management Plans, is defunct since around 1998. (interview with forest officers in the Kudawa Forest Office). Sewa Lanka Foundation, a national NGO also has been working with Kudawa for some time now. They have assisted the village in developing plant nurseries and when the flash floods and landslides occurred in May 2003. Villagers and the SN confirmed the same.

There is no electricity supply to the village from the national grid. However, many have electricity through micro-hydro schemes or solar panels. 22 households get electricity (only to illuminate, use a TV and, or, a radio) from micro-hydro systems and 14 households have electricity from solar panels. It should be noted that initial investment for these are quite high, particularly solar panels, compared with an average income earner in the country. (source: KHGN-KDS; veracity checked from GN and SN).

In the past (mostly pre-1970s) most houses were simple wattle and daub structures with roofs thatched with dried beru (Agrostistachys longifolia) and bamboo (Ochlandra stridula) leaves or coconut (Cocos nucifera) thatch; clay tiles were rare. By the 1990s the situation was changing due to the shift from subsistence agriculture to intensive tea cultivation throughout the previous decade. (Mc Dermott, 1985). By 1993 almost all houses had modern roofing material such as corrugated sheets and tiles, and were constructed with permanent materials. (IUCN, 1993).

4.7. Current situation

I have explained the current situation with the empirical data I gathered and verified through interviews with villagers, SN and GN, Kudawa Forest Officers and KHGN-KDS.

Mr. Aruna (not the real name), a villager, has an eco-lodge (Disithuru Eco-Lodge) on the upper parts of the village. Currently he is expanding the facilities to build a dormitory and a hall. The Forest Department also has a dormitory as well as a bungalow (Eco Lodge). There were no conflicts of interest since Mr. Aruna’s place although more expensive than the Forest Department’s accommodation, it was more attractive in term of its location. However, recently, another hotel (Blue Magpie Lodge) has been constructed in the buffer zone. It is a more expensive place with more comforts and also has applied for a liquor permit; something which worries the villagers. Figure 3 has all three places marked.

In May 2003 there were flash floods in the area. A flood of such magnitude was never recorded before within the last 100 years or so (no official records of such incidents and also confirmed by 30(91) three former Conservators of Forests and two elderly villagers). It also resulted in damages to roads and bridges and also caused landslides in many areas. I observed the devastation when I visited the area soon after the floods for distribution of relief. The forest, as well as the access road to Kudawa too was severely affected. According to the Kudawa Forest Officers, NORAD has given funding to rehabilitate the damages. Through my discussions with villagers I found out that instead of repairing the road to Kudawa, the Forest Department is repairing an old logging track, which would provide easy and quick access to visitors to the forest. There are only few houses along that road. Villagers are not happy about repairing the old logging track without repairing their road.

Surprisingly, most tea plantations which had been completely submerged had survived and were yielding, except where those were damaged or destroyed due to the landslides which occurred aftermath of floods. Many areas around the forest sported new houses and several buildings were being built, some of it with state or private sector aid. It must be appreciated that this wave of construction activity has not led to an increase of timber felling in the Sinharaja forest by the local people. Some villages are more affected from the floods and landslides than others, and it is to be expected that it will take some time before they regain the socio-economic status they enjoyed previously. The damage to roads and bridges has also created much hardship to people on a daily basis in some areas, particularly for the transport of tea leaves to collection centres as they now have to be hand carried perilously across several temporary bridges made out of bamboo stems and arecanut (Areca catechu) trees. (Dela, 2003).

5. Results

5.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the Management Plan for Sinharaja – Phase I

This plan was originally referred to as the “Conservation Plan for Sinharaja Forest” and was prepared under WWF/IUCN Project 3307 – Consolidation of the Sinharaja Forest of Sri Lanka (WWF/IUCN, 1986). This plan was implemented from 1988 to 1992.

In this section I have presented the results in terms of strengths and weaknesses, using the said plan, reviews on the plan and data from my interviews with officials as well as villagers of Kudawa. Further, I have examined both the plan as well as actual implementation.

5.1.1. Static view of the ecosystem

This plan had a static view of the ecosystem, which is evident in the plan itself; according the plan, the preferred strategy was to “freeze resource use within the reserve at 1985 levels” and gradually eliminate future resource dependency on the reserve by relocating villages in areas outside the reserve. The only extraction it allowed was kitul tapping under permit. (WWF/IUCN, 1986).

5.1.2. Inadequate coordination among state agencies

It was admitted by the former Conservators of Forests whom I interviewed that inadequate co- ordination with other state agencies, such as those concerned with development and promotion of tea, rubber and other crops, within the buffer zone also was a set back to the plan. No activities were implemented inside the forest during the period (1988 – 1991) either. This is also admitted in the justification for the revised plan which was done in May 1993. (IUCN, 1993).

5.1.3. Stakeholder participation

However, there were many remarkable successes as well. First of all the process of the formulation of the Plan was to a greater extent with the participation of several stakeholders (Forest Department officials, researchers/academics, representatives from regional administration & national level 31(91) NGOs, etc.) A five-day workshop covering several aspects such as ecology, socio-economics, anthropology, natural resource management, geology, etc. (IUCN, 1993); local level concerns have been communicated through the Kudawa Forest Office to the Forest Department as well as through the researchers; this was confirmed by Mr. Aruna and two other villagers, two researchers and the Kudawa GN at that time who also has participated in local level discussions. The rural social structure is such that most villagers are shy and many also lack confidence in participating and speaking at large gatherings with so called “people with broad knowledge and experiences of the world” and thus, even if they are invited to participate they would not talk. However, the point I wish to emphasis here is that given the social dynamics, still the concerns of the locals can, and have, reached the highest levels.

5.1.4. Research

Among the other successes is the commencement of research on ecosystems as well as socio- economic situation in the periphery. During the period, socio-economic surveys were done in eight villages. (De Silva, 1985).

5.1.5. Impact on Kudawa

The major infrastructure development in Kudawa was the construction of the Forest Research, Education and Extension Centre (REEC) and development of the Weddagala – Kudawa Road, in addition to expanding facilities for tourists in Kudawa (IUCN, 1993 and Gunawardane, 2003).

Many villagers also were able to engage in employment generated by the project; mainly working as casual labours in the construction work, assisting and guiding surveyors and forest officers in boundary surveys, assisting researchers, working in plant nurseries, re-forestation and agro-forestry demonstration plots, etc. Particularly consultations and advice sought on local ecological knowledge (LEK) buy the researchers also contributed to increase of self-esteem of the villagers, who were generally considered as backward and a helpless community (IUCN, 1993 and Gunawardane, 2003). Mr. Aruna also verified the information while talking about his role in assisting the researchers.

Although, dependency of Kudawa villagers on the forest for their livelihood was decreasing, still they did want to have certain resources, particularly medicinal plants and occasionally certain exotic edible items. In this context, prohibition of extractions was seen as taking away their traditional rights. However, although it was made illegal, the practices continued, but with some restrain (Urugodawatte, 1995 and interviews with two elderly villagers).

5.1.6. Demarcation of boundary: forest and buffer zone

Although Sinharaja was long declared a forest reserve, there were no physical demarcations done before. On most parts, boundaries are streams, rivers or ridges; but on other places where there was no significant natural physical feature, hardly any one new where exactly the boundary would be. This also led to encroachment unknowingly (WWF/IUCN, 1986). According to a project proposal prepared for funding titled “Sinharaja Conservation Project – Phase II” by the Ministry of Lands, Irrigation and Mahaweli Development in January 1992 (this is different form the actual Management Plan – Phase II), out of 63 km of the boundary, 61.3 km was surveyed and 894 concrete posts were erected. Along with this, a survey on encroachment was also carried out in the section south-western part of the boundary which was not surveyed. (ibid).On the north-western side which was logged (where Kudawa is), Forest Department planted four rows of pinus (pinus caribae) as a live boarder in degraded and barren lands (Bandarathillake, 1992 and IUCN, 1993).

32(91) A weakness in deciding and demarcating the boundary was that the access to villages was not considered in determining the boundary. Where the boundary was demarcated, if it particularly interrupted the traditional paths connecting villages, the villagers removed the concrete posts; this was revealed through the discussions I had with two elderly villagers and was also admitted by a former Deputy Conservator of Forests. Thus, it is clear that when deciding the boundaries, the issues on the ground have not been considered.

As for the buffer zone, neither the area which should be included nor the borders were clearly identified during the implementation of the Phase I. However, including all the bordering lands, roughly up to three-kilometers adjoining the natural forest, buffer zone management activities were launched. Propagation of forest species such as wewel (Calamus sp.), kitul (Caryota urens), etc., setting up plant nurseries for agro-forestry, rural development programmes, education and awareness programmes for students in peripheral villages as well as other surrounding areas, nutrient-loading and reforestation of degraded lands and implementation of soil conservation methods were some of the activities done in the buffer zone during the period (IUCN, 1993, Urugodawatte, 1995 and Gunawardane, 2003). Information was also corroborated from the Forest Officers.

5.1.7. Implications of land ownership

Although recommendations pertaining to eviction of so called “illegal settlers” has not been possible to be implemented, with various reconciliatory measures some adjustments had been made (IUCN, 1993). This situation is linked to the land ownership by the villagers. The term “illegal settlers” is used for those villagers who do not have documentary proof for ownership. However, some have lived there for generations. Although a boundary survey had been done in 1937, no clear physical demarcation of the boundaries has been made. (of course on many sections there are natural boundaries). Most villagers who are living on the periphery have encroached state land, which has been a common practice in many remote areas in the country about half a decade ago. Some of the encroached land, had been subsequently gifted to the settlers. There are also large land areas which are owned by those who live outside the area. Some of these lands were barren, while some had cinnamon or rubber cultivation in earlier times and later converted to tea. The ignorance of government authorities of the boundaries of the forest, other state lands also made the situation even more complex. As a result, Forest Department also has cultivated pinus (pinus caribae) in barren private land! The reconciliatory measures included re-locating such villagers in nearby other state lands as well as the on-going process of releasing pinus (pinus caribae) cultivated private lands to the owners. (source: interviews with two former Deputy Conservators of Forests and two elderly villagers including Mr. Aruna).

It also should be noted that villagers, who have lived in the village for generations did not realize that they did not have proper ownership of the land they were living and cultivating. Hence, this aspect was never communicated to the higher levels during the discussions/deliberations for the management plan.

5.1.8. Loss of local ecological knowledge (LEK)

Restrictions made on traditional rights of access to the forest and use of forest resources, particularly with regard to kitul tapping, has contribute to gradual erosion of local ecological knowledge. This is quite evident from the interviews I had with five young people in the village. They admitted that when compared to the older generations, they are more familiar with scientific knowledge and less of LEK. The reason they sighted were the non-dependence on the forest for livelihood through expulsion by authorities at first, and then on their own accord, exposure to modern scientific knowledge through awareness programmes by the Forest Department and

33(91) working as assistants to researchers. The only exception that I could find was Mr. Aruna and his children. (Urugodawatte, 1995 and interviews with two elderly villagers and Mr. Aruna).

5.1.9. National and international recognition

The successes of the implementation of the plan no doubt would have contributed to Sinharaja been declared as a National Heritage by the UNESCO.

5.2. Strengths and weaknesses: Management Plan – Phase II

This section is based on the afore mentioned document with the original title of “Management Plan for the Conservation of the Sinharaja Forest (Phase II)” prepared by IUCN in collaboration with the Forest Department and was implemented between 1994 to 1998.

The Plan is in line with the requirements for MAB and as a natural World Heritage. (Dela, 2003).

5.2.1. Demarcation of boundary: forest and buffer zone

Starting with positive aspects, almost all boundaries have now been systematically survey and demarcated; encroached land has been excluded, instead other bordering state forest lands have been included; however, acquiring of private land is delayed due to legal procedures and disputes concerning compensation (Gunawardane, 2003). However, it appears that removal of markings (concrete post) is still occurring on some parts of the boundary (interviews with villagers).

A three-kilometre wide buffer zone was declared but has not been demarcated. However, buffer zone activities such as propagating of wewel (Calamus sp.), kitul (Caryota urens) and fast growing timber species for fuelwood were the main activities. Seeds of these were also distributed free of charge by the Forest Department among villagers to be planted in home gardens. There is also a medicinal plant conservation project in the buffer zone (Bandarathillake, 1992).

The formulation of the Phase II Plan was not known to villagers or to other local officials whom I interviewed. Even some of the officials at the Kudawa Forest Office have not seen the document. However, having reviewed the document as well as interviewed one of the Consultants (a former Conservator of Forests), it appeared to me that the information has been obtained through interviews with a few villagers, including Mr. Aruna, and through reports generated from the Kudawa Forest Office; however, it appears that during the process of extracting/obtaining information, the purpose has not been revealed. The Consultant under reference stated that it was more of an extension of the earlier plan to rectify practical problems encountered at the ground level during implementation; thus, there was no necessity for extensive consultations separately with villagers at neither local level nor informing them about a Phase II plan. Further, villagers also did not feel that from the period 1988 to 1998 that two plans were implemented.

5.2.2. Alternative livelihood and further loss of local ecological knowledge (LEK)

By this time most of Kudawa villagers were cultivating tea and was not much dependent on the forest. Tea cultivation, which takes much of the time of villagers, also has reduced the villagers’ interaction with the forest (Gunawardane, 2003). This scenario has led to loss of cause to maintain LEK and is discussed and analysed further in the subsequent sections of this study.

6. Analysis

In the foregoing sections I have elaborated the complexities and vulnerabilities that exist in the problem domain by reviewing previous literature and gathering empirical data relevant to the study 34(91) area. In sum, the changing protection regimes with logging of Sinharaja, international demand for Ceylon tea, international recognition for Sinharaja, implications in landownership that has contributed to changing socio-economic conditions of the villagers of Kudawa have all contributed to a web of dynamic interactions, which has resulted in ever increasing vulnerabilities and complexities in the social-ecological system considered. Thus, it is evident that such complexities increase high decision stakes and unprecedented risks; therefore, the problem domain in this social- ecological system does in deed fall within the realm of “Post-normal Science”.

In the backdrop of post normal science, I wish to analyze how some of the relationships among three key stakeholder groups (villagers, forest officials and researchers), add more complexities to the social-ecological system under reference, at the local level.

6.1. Relationship between villagers and Researchers

As in any rural village in Sri Lanka, outsiders are always welcomed. Initially when research started in 1980s the researchers were much dependent on the villagers; for accommodation and lodging, to go in to the dense forest and also to learn from their local ecological knowledge; without which, the researchers were helpless. This gave much confidence and pride to the villagers who were from socially marginalized communities and also belonged to lower occupational castes with many having limited formal education. The villagers also had the opportunity to be involved in research activities and to combine their local ecological knowledge with scientific knowledge. As a result many villagers know Latin names of many exotic species and scientific value of such species, their importance for biodiversity, endemism, etc. However, it appeared that the younger generation is losing the local ecological knowledge related to “sensing” or “feeling” the nature (i.e. being able to predict various natural phenomena by observing and listening to nature). This is being replaced by more and more scientific knowledge. However, the youth are still having adequate local ecological knowledge to know how often certain plants bloom, special habitats, identification of species, traditional remedies for insect bites, simple illnesses, etc. However, it is fast disappearing.

Based on literary review and the interviews with two parties and three former Conservators of Forests, my assessment is that this close relationship is a result of both parties continues to benefit from the relationship.

However, five youth interviewed in the village said that some researchers only come to gather information which would be used to project the village as a marginalized community (like the way it was 50 years ago) and obtain funds for projects and later misuse such funds. Such incidents have been on the rise since recent. Therefore, many villagers are now careful in providing information to strangers, unless they come with a clear recommendation from known researchers or known to the villagers directly or indirectly. (13 villagers confirmed this).

6.2. Relationship between villagers and the Kudawa Forest Office

This has been somewhat of a love-and-hate type of relationship. During the time of logging (in early 1970s), villagers had much opportunities to develop economically; many opportunities came via the Kudawa Forest Office; i.e. cutting roads, support services for logging industry, working as casual employees in the Kudawa Forest Office, etc. There was no prohibition for villagers to extract forest resources either. The forest was governed under the 1907 Forest Ordinance. (WWF/IUCN, 1986). Under this Ordinance, kitul tapping by license was permitted within the forest. (De Zoysa, 1993).

In 1978, after Sinharaja was declared as an International MAB reserve, villagers were prohibited to enter the forest. Although by this time, many were already into tea cultivation and not heavily dependent on the forest for their livelihoods, it did create tension between the Kudawa Forest Office 35(91) and the villagers (interviews with forest officers, SN, GN and villagers). Kitul tapping under license was also planned to phase out. Notwithstanding the regulations the villagers continued to tap kitul which has been regulated by traditional customary practices. Concentrations of kitul palms in the forest were “owned” by families who claim ancestral ownership. The case is also similar for other forest produce, where villagers have “partitioned” forest areas adjacent to the villages according to traditional norms. However later on kitul tapping under license was introduced. (De Zoysa, 1993 and interviews with forest officers and villagers).

Although the villagers are now fully aware of the illegality of extracting forest resources, they would continue to extract resources as long as it could be economically profitable. (interviews with forest officers, SN, GN and villagers). However, tea has become the dominant income generating source and consumes much time of villagers and thus, it is also more profitable than collecting forest produce. This seems to be the main reason for hardly any illegal extraction of forest resources taking place from Kudawa side of the forest. It was confirmed by the officials at the Kudawa Forest Office.

Villagers also had the opportunity to work in the buffer zone in pinus (pinus caribae) planting in the buffer zone areas and mahogany (wietenia macrophylla) planting on skidding tracks in 1978. These opportunities also made the relationship between the two groups closer for a while. (IUCN, 1993 and interviews with villagers).

Generally, during the time periods when the two Management Plans were implemented (1988 – 1998), villagers had many opportunities to participate in activities related to social-economic development of the village, conservation of the forest and related research activities. The villagers also benefited by various donations received for the school, local societies such as sports club, and agricultural implements; the road to the village was developed and many were able to gain employment in construction activities related to development of infrastructure of the Kudawa Forest Office and plant nurseries. Some villagers were also invited to share their LEK with fellow villagers, students from surrounding areas, etc. at workshops and seminars organized to disseminate scientific ecological knowledge. (IUCN, 1993, Urugodawatte, 1995, Gunawardane, 2003 and interviews with forest officers and villagers).

Therefore, it seems to be quite natural that whenever there was no funding for activities in which villagers could participate, the relationship would not be at its best. In addition, what made things worse from the villagers point of view, was that most Forest Officers who were there during such periods without funding for activities also have been very introvert or pessimistic. Thus interaction with the villagers had been minimum.

Currently, there is hardly any encroachment. Illegal harvesting of forest produce too has almost disappeared from Kudawa side. Officials at the Kudawa Forest Office also appreciated the role of villagers in monitoring illegal activities, which most often involve outsiders. (interviews with two former Conservators of Forests, Forest Officers, GN and SN) Villagers are also much comfortable and are appreciative of the current Forester, who is in-charge at the Kudawa Forest Office. (21 villagers interviewed more or less confirmed).

Villagers are also aware that the Kudawa Forest Office is earning much money from the entrance tickets to the forest. On certain days during school holidays, the collection has been about Rs.40,000.00 (US$ 400). However, this money goes to the government treasury and not to the Forest Department budget. In 2002 alone 34,826 visitors have come to Sinharaja which has brought revenue of Rs.3,174,007.50 (approx. US$ 317,400.75) (Gunawardane 2003).

6.2.1. Disagreements

36(91) Through the interviews with Forest Officers at Kudawa and villagers, particularly the youth I was able to understand some of the disagreements and subtle conflicts between the Kudawa Forest Office and the villagers.

Although, villagers were noticing expansion of Kudawa Forest Office, staff and activities, villagers were disappointed of not getting permanent employment; this was a main grievance all the villagers I interviewed had. Several villagers are working as casual employees at the Kudawa Forest Office and some as Forest Guides. In this context the two most contentious points were: ƒ Not making the villagers employed by the Kudawa Forest Office permanent (and instead relatives of Forest Department staff recruited on certain instances) ƒ No land for the villagers to expand their tea cultivations.

The Forest Guides who are registered with the Forest Department (casual employment) are also unhappy since out of the 16 (only three from Kudawa) several are not been paid for months and has not been provided with Identity Cards. This discriminatory attitude by the Department has made them to come together and form an association; it has applied for registration now.

6.3. Relationship between Researchers and the Forest Department

Through the discussions I had with the researchers and the forest officers in Kudawa as well as at the national level at the Forest Department, I realized that the relationship has been usually effective and smooth. The social link provided mutual benefits for both groups. Whenever the Kudawa Forest Office has to provide reports to the Department, assistance and the research data gathered by the researchers are important. On the other hand, researchers have to work within the jurisdiction of the Kudawa Forest Office and the implementation of their research activities needs blessings of the Forest Office.

Kudawa Forest Office also from time to time conducts seminars for villagers and school children from neighbouring areas. Also lectures the tourist groups. When forest officers are trained, expertise of researchers and academics communities are also obtained in addition to the expertise of senior forest officials. Some of the scientific data presented by the Forest Department are based on research done by non-Forest Department researchers.

Thus, I am of the opinion that the dependency on each other and the mutual benefits accrued has made the two parties to collaborate continuously.

6.4. Current village economy and its future

The ownership of land among the villagers was minimum before with most of them living and cultivating on government land illegally. Today, 33.3% (41.2 ha.) of land is privately owned land. Approximately 95% of villagers now cultivate tea, followed by rubber as the main source of income. Many own 0.1 to 1.2 ha. of tea growing land. Most of them also have small plots of rice cultivation, of which the produce is most often used for own consumption. Other mixed crops are also cultivated in home gardens while some also have small extents of cinnamon cultivation. There is no land encroachment of the forest from Kudawa village side. (source: GN and SN).

Several youth are working as casual labourers in the plant nurseries managed under the the Kudawa Forest Office, working as Forest Guides, having a small kiosk, other government jobs out side the village, masonry, carpentry, etc. while cultivating tea. Plantations are usually maintained by family members. The most dominant forest use still is kitul tapping. However, this practice is largely confined to the older generation and is generally looked down upon by the educated younger generation as it involves tree climbing (Dela, 2003) as well as since it is also identified with o the occupation-based caste of “toddy tappers”. (Urugodawatte, 1995). Another occupation-based caste 37(91) is the “cinnamon peelers”; who have almost totally moved away from their caste-based occupation (Urugodawatte, 1995).

Refer Table 9 for information on changes in income levels and sources over the threshold years.

Monthly income of an average villager in Kudawa is around Rs.5000.00 (approx. US$ 500) which is higher than the national level. As mentioned earlier, most have houses constructed with bricks/granite with cement and tiled or asbestos roofing. When its come to source of electricity, obtaining electricity from solar power or from micro-hydro which requires high initial investments, is a distant dream for majority of Sri Lankans. (Source: SN).

6.5. Current Impasse in Kudawa

When I try to understand the current situation in the social-ecological system under reference, I feel that there is an impasse. When I visited the village it seemed that social links between above- mentioned three groups have become more distant. Particularly the links between villagers and the officials of the Kudawa Forest Office seem to be filled with much suspicion.

What Forest Officers say is that since there are no projects to involve villagers they cannot involve villagers in their activities as much as they want to. Having realized this situation, the current Forester, Mr. Bandara, has formulated a project proposal to enhance people’s participation in forest management; he has applied for funding from donor agencies through the Forest Department. (interview with Mr. Bandara).

Eight villagers seem to feel that they (implying villagers in general) are been used by the Forest Department to get project funding but are not given a fair share. There had been several instances where villagers have been asked to do various activities and has not been paid for. In some cases, villagers have volunteered their services, but have later learnt that Forest Officers has pilfered the money which was allocated for such activities. I understand that this kind of corruption is prevalent in some of the Forest Offices. When I tried to verify this from SN and GN, they were silent; being aware of social-cultural context, I interpreted the silence as admitting the situation.

The researchers/academics were of the view that for stimulation it requires a reason – a conflict situation or threat to the forest, to stimulate general attention to the forest as well as the village. At the moment there is hardly any, and thus the impasse. This was collaborated with the evidence for the concern and active protests when logging in Sinharaja commenced in 1971, the Five-Year Investment Plan included logging in wet zone forests in 1980s and when the US Government wanted to finance management and research activities in Sinharaja in 2004. All these led to national level agitations.

6.6. Socio-economic development in Kudawa

It should be reckoned with that in the Sri Lankan context, particularly in Kudawa, dependency of villagers on the forest for their livelihood is now minimum; thus, the possibility of a gradual and conditional transfer of full responsibility to communities for all aspects of management of forest resources is rather difficult. (Dela, 2003).

Although tea cultivation brings a good income for the villagers in Kudawa and housing conditions have improved tremendously during the past decade, educational, medical and transport services have lagged behind. Even with fairly high literacy rates, and the existence of a primary school in the village, most villagers interviewed were sceptical of the facilities in the primary school. This was attributed to a severe dearth of basic resources and teachers. One of the reasons for under-staffing is due to lack of accommodation for teachers who are mostly not from the area. Despite these 38(91) constraints most students in Kudawa will currently continue schooling to levels between grade eight and eleven (G.C.E: Ordinary Level).

Similarly villagers have poor access to western medical facilities; the closest hospital is in Kalawana, 17.5 km away. The problem of access to hospitals for the sick has been aggravated due to floods in 2003 which has damaged roads and bridges. Floods also have caused landslides. Only public transport available is the bus from the Kalawana Transport Board (government owned) which commute between Kalwana via Weddagala to Kudawa four times a day (but some times it is only two or three times a day). Travelling time is about one hour.

6.7. Increasing dependency on scientific knowledge over local ecological knowledge (LEK)

It was also observed that by and large the dependency on indigenous/traditional medical practice by the villagers is on the decline while reliance on western medication is on the increase. Restrictions made for villagers for extractions from the forests which included essential ingredients for traditional medicine (some are endemic species as well) too could have resulted in the drift. The gradual decline in traditional medical practices also has resulted in that the 2nd generation (children) of traditional medicine practitioners do not follow the traditional occupation. The few remaining traditional medicine practitioners of high calibre are old and mainly those who treat fractures or snake bites. Similarly people with a knowledge of folklore, local customs and traditional rituals are also dying out as the younger generation is not interested in preserving this knowledge, mainly due to lack of economic incentives to do so. Consequently the invaluable LEK of forest products associated with medicinal use and associated local customs and rituals will also soon be lost.

6.8. Erosion of local ecological knowledge (LEK) and monitoring of forest

It was also learnt from the academics, villagers as well as the Forest Officers themselves that patrolling/monitoring the forest is now far less that the past due to multitude of reasons, including villagers being more involved with tea plantations. Lessening of monitoring by villagers would definitely have a negative impact on the forest. Without villagers it is impossible to monitor, not just due to inadequacy in staff at the Kudawa Forest Office, but also due to lack of LEK which is necessary to sustain social-ecological resilience. In fact it was the villagers who have identified certain foreigners who have tried to remove endemic species from the forest, and got the Forest Officers to take required legal action. In this context, role of villagers as guardians of the forests, to be vigilant of intruders is a must. Thus, I believe that the Kudawa Forest Office should make extra efforts to retain the services of villagers through goodwill. This was one of the key recommendations in the Phase II Management Plan.

6.9. Desire for permanent government employment

Desiring for permanent employment is a social requirement rather than economical. One might wonder why the villagers, who earn a good income from tea, wants to get a government job but it is part and parcel of the mind set of most Sri Lankans who think that that having a government employment is an important status symbol. It must be noted here that no government servant currently can survive without complimentary sources of income; cost of living is extremely high when compared to the salaries. In fact, many villagers earn a monthly income more than the highest officer at Kudawa Forest Office!

The allegation of employing relatives in the Forest Department is true but is not a frequent occurrence as acknowledged by several Forest Department senior officers as well. Both the government policy on recruitment, which conducts open competitive examinations, and since already 1% of Sri Lanka’s population is in the government service (this is quite a high ratio for an 39(91) efficient public service, according to the World Bank which has recommended to the government of Sri Lanka to cut down), is probably reducing the chances for providing Kudawa villagers with government employment. However, as a national policy, it would be worthwhile to explore the possibilities for giving additional marks for technical level jobs related to forests, to those who have been living in the borders of forests and possess LEK when interviews are done for recruitment.

When I tried to ascertain why this malpractice was not brought to the notice of relevant authorities, the response was that they (villagers) are scared to take it up to a higher level fearing local (from the Kudawa Forest Office) repercussions. However, I doubt such reactions coming from Forest Officers in Kudawa. I see it as more of lack of self-confidence and thus lack of initiative to seek redress. There had been instances in the past where such grievances reported had been redressed (Mr. Aruna, who was a casual employee for a long time, finally got himself confirmed by taking up the matter at the national level with the Forest Department).

Thus, in the current context, a good way to win the villagers to the side of Forest Department would be making at least some of them permanent.

6.10. Implications due to tea plantations and demand for land

Villagers wanting more land for expansion of tea have to be considered in the broader perspective. First of all it denotes that they have save enough to possess capital to make an investment for additional cultivation. Secondly, they still have time and energy to spend for cultivation or have adequate income to hire labour (already there are two labourer families in Kudawa). However, it is a fact that in the whole of Ratnapura District there is high shortage of labour to work in tea and rubber plantations, particularly around Kalawana. Under current circumstances, particularly due to transportation problems, villagers would not be willing to buy land away from the village. Thus, in the long run, there could be encroachment of the state lands around Kudawa, both outside and inside the buffer zone which may even threaten the forest. Other than this future threat of land encroachment, tea plantations could also have other negative effects; use of chemical sprays for weeding and pests, as well as nutrients (a zinc based spray) which are all airborne, would affect the forest ecosystem. Although usage of such sprays are not much at the moment, with expansion of mono cropping (such as tea), increase of vulnerability to weeds and pests has been observed. Increase of mono cropping also would result in loss of support areas in the buffer zone; which in turn would increase vulnerability and decrease the ecological resilience in the forest. Not having adequate land to cultivate tea might also result in migration of villagers; either to towns closeby where there are more economic opportunities or by encroachment of state land for cultivation of tea. According to my assessment we might not have to wait for long for this to happen.

Another indirect, but a condition which would have a severe impact on the social-ecological system is the increased tea cultivation and its negative impact on LEK; this is because tea cultivation takes much time of the villagers and coupled with their almost non-dependency on forest for livelihood, villagers’ interaction with the forest is a bare minimum (Gunawardane, 2003).

6.11. Recognition of traditional rights

With the prohibition of issuing permits for kitul tapping in the forest by the National Heritage and Wilderness Area Act of 1988, villagers were unhappy; there were only few trees in the state lands outside the forest, and even less on private lands. In this context, regulated kitul tapping by Phase II Plan was in a way recognizing traditional rights and was indeed a victory for the villagers. But in my view, it was too late, since villagers have moved in to other alternative livelihoods which were generating more income and faster.

6.12. Migration trends: into and out of Kudawa 40(91)

As for migrations out of the village, in addition to the desire to expand tea cultivation, education would be also a driving factor; there are minimum opportunities for employment in the village, especially to meet the expectations of the educated youth. In this case, migrations could be to close towns such as Kalawana or even further away, particularly if in the government employment which are transferable. My interviews revealed that some of the youth who have completed secondary education, prefer to go out (within the country or abroad) make money, but to come back to the village. However, with achieving higher education levels (such as university education), which has started to happen, migration would take place.

On the other hand, migration to village from outside could increase with the increasing popularity as a tourist destination, both local and foreign. There are support services required for the tourists, but hardly available at the moment. For instance, there are only toilets at the Eco Lodge and office buildings belonging to the Forest Department, REEC and the Field Research Station. There are neither restaurants nor shops which would sell basic requirements of a tourist who would come for a day’s visit. However, one could still request for a meal to be organized by a villager or order at the two private eco-lodges. For those who wish to stay overnight facilities are available in these places. The information centre is maintained by the Forest Department.

6.13. Eco-tourism and responsibilities of Forest Department

It is the responsibility of the Forest Department to facilitate infrastructure development required for the tourism industry. The Department has a right to request and obtain funds form the central government to develop such facilities since, the earnings of entry fees are credited to the government account. In the absence of such funds, the Department at least should play a regulatory role in managing establishment of required infrastructure. Other wise, unplanned, unsolicited infrastructure development in the village could make the social-ecological system in the study area vulnerable to such changes and even create regime shifts. This is already visible with the opening up of the Magpie Lodge, which has higher standards that the other two lodges. I feel that there is resentment by villagers, particularly Mr. Aruna, who owns the Disithuru Lodge, due to increased competition. However, the fact that it is not owned by a villager and even not staffed by villagers, and above all the application made for a permit to sell liquor also are crucial issues that has to be reckoned with. It must be noted here that rural traditions of the country always condoned intoxicating beverages; toddy was considered more of nourishment and a refreshing drink. Easy access to liquor is most often associated with giving rise to social problems in Sri Lanka. (Consumption of liquor is something which was systematically and slowly forced upon by the British Colonial government on Sri Lanka, in order to destabilize the rural socio-economic self- sufficiency as well as community-based activities mainly to obtain labour for plantation agriculture (tea, rubber, coconut, cinnamon). Thus, in many rural communities, particularly marginalized communities, alcoholism is a severe problem).

6.14. Implications of the construction of a new road

The second access road being developed after the flash floods is also likely to bring about local agitation which would add further complexities and make the social-ecological resilience of the study area more vulnerable, mainly because of loss of trust between local and higher levels. In fact, direct involvement of outsiders in the buffer zone and the easy access to the forest could pave the way for a series of new external threats to the forest while disturbing the village culture and society. This has to be studied in detail.

6.15. Aspirations of Kudawa villagers

41(91) The socio-economic base of the village has changed much now to a point of no return. If the income levels, education and health indicators are considered as the basis for assessing poverty, it appears that villagers have long passed the threshold in the development process. However, when considering infrastructure available in the village and employment opportunities, the village is still at a lower level. From the villagers point of view they do not want to be identified with their earlier occupation-based castes, or to be referred to as marginalized or backward or poor communities. A recent television documentary which has highlighted aspects which existed in the village over five decades ago, as if it is still the same, has angered the villagers very much.

6.16. Leadership in the village

6.16.1. “Rise” and “fall” of a leader - Mr. Aruna

The following information is based on the interviews I had with researchers/academics, former Conservators of Forests, GN, SN and villagers, including Mr. Aruna, himself.

Mr. Aruna had no formal education and had been a labourer in the Kudawa Forest Office. He is now 60 yrs. Like the rest of the villagers he was extracting resources from the forest. He is now retired. Over the years, in addition to his job he had been working as an assistant to the researchers and Forest Officers; the exposure had enabled him to blend his knowledge (particularly the local ecological knowledge) gained through observation and experience, with scientific reasoning. No researcher venture into Sinharaja without first meeting him. He is an authority on resources of Sinharaja and is extremely sharp in identifying different species, their locations, special phenomena about species and interaction among species. He has a special ability to identify a wide range of animals by their sounds as well highly attuned to the micro-climatic conditions in the area. Having saved some money during the commercial logging days, he now runs an eco-lodge (Disithuru Eco- Lodge) within the buffer zone. Two of his children, who have completed secondary school, following the father’s steps, were guides. However, apparently due to refusal to take local tourists to the forest (some foreigners give large tips), the two has now left guiding. Instead the whole family is devoting time to run the lodge and to cultivate tea.

Not only the research community and the officials of the Department of Forests recognisers his capacity, particularly in terms of LEK, even several Presidents and Prime Ministers of the country has given national decorations for his contributions to the nation.

Mr. Aruna can be compared in certain ways with the key actor in the Kristianstad Vattenrike study (as reported by Hahn, et al. 2004); a leader and a change agent in a way. But unlike in the KV study, Mr. Aruna’s role has been passive and he did not have a role in decision-making. However, his knowledge and capabilities are well known and admired; the hierarchy often took his suggestions seriously and he is in fact an agent who links interests across levels vertically. With all this stated, it appears that Mr. Aruna is loosing his importance in the village due to several reasons such as his personal interests relating to his eco-lodge, conflicts with the Kudawa Forest Office over his son and a daughter who were employed as guides, and to a certain extent, his stubbornness to compromise.

There are several other youths who are coming forward now; no doubt that as youngsters they used to listen to stories of the forest from Mr. Aruna as well as listened to his lectures and seminars organized by the Forest Department in the past. One such youth is Mr. Channa.

6.16.2. Emerging youth leadership - Mr. Channa

The following information is based on the interviews I had with researchers/academics, former Conservators of Forests, GN, SN and villagers, including Mr. Aruna and Mr. Channa. 42(91)

He had been a member of the “Sinharaja Sumithuro” (Friends of Sinharaja) and now a member of the Forest Guides’ Association. He is working hard to get the organization registered and take up the grievances of the guides at a higher level. He was quite optimistic and had good relations with the Forest Office too. He did admire and respect Mr. Aruna for his knowledge and experience but felt that continuous personal interests are not helpful to win the rights of the majority. He is also worried about the new lodge and the social problems that the village would have to encounter if the liquor permit is issued. As a villager whose family also is in to tea cultivation, he acknowledged that the road to the village has been damaged not only by floods but also by constant arrival of trucks to collect tea. But he was firm on his opposition to the new road since in addition to the difficulties in transporting tea, it will lessen the informal monitoring of illegal activities by the villagers. It was also observed that he commands respect of several of his peers and elders as well.

6.17. Towards a new horizon - social capital formation

For the first time, there seem to be the emergence of an organization (Forest Guides’ Association) with a vision to stand up against injustice in Kudawa. Mr. Channa is the key person in this initiative. Previously, the NGO “Sinharaja Sumithuro” was created by the Forest Department to fulfil the requirements of the Management Plans; in fact, it was the village Volleyball Club which was converted in to “Sinharaja Sumithuro”. Mr. Channa, who has also been a member of this NGO says that failure was due to “not having a role to perform when funding ceased”. The emergence of the Forest Guides’ Association, its potential and emerging leadership would be discussed in the discussion section of this study.

7. Discussion

In this section I discuss how and why the governance system of Sinharaja changed in order to tease out the impact of the current governance system on the social-ecological resilience in the study area; this is done through describing and analysing the changing protections regimes taking certain key years as reference points.

In this context, refer to Table 10 for summary of protection regimes in Sri Lanka that affected/affecting forests in Sri Lanka in general, and Sinharaja in specific, and their key features. Table 11 provides a summary on Sri Lanka’s obligations under international agreements relating to conservation and management of forests, specifically Sinharaja.

7.1. Pre - 1971 scenario: Traditional way of life

7.1.1. Background

In 1950s threats to Sinharaja started appearing. Much attention was paid to the forest with extensive analyses of its timber potential. By the 1960s, exploitation of the island’s lowland rain forests to meet the demand for timber commenced. A fresh survey was done with the assistance of FAO and UNDP to assess the raw material abundance to establish a plywood industry. The Government which was in power at that time chose a policy of a closed economy and self-development with available resources. With the influences of international arena for optimising local resources as well and the survey done by FAO and UNDP on the timber potential of the wet zone forests, State Plywood Corporation was established by the government in 1968. The process began in wet zone forests in early 1970s and towards the end of the year, mechanized logging of forest reserves adjoining Sinharaja also commenced.

During the period, villagers were mostly dependent on the forest for their livelihood. They extracted forest produce both for subsistence as well as to generate income. Extractions were based on their 43(91) daily requirements using LEK and in line with their traditional practices and rights. Slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation and kitul tapping inside the forest close to the village were also practiced. But it appears that none of the activities of these much impoverished communities, posed a threat to the forest at that time. Extractions from the forest areas, which were declared as a Forest Reserve, were “illegal”. Although Forest Department authorities were aware of it, due to lack of resources to monitor and to take preventive measures, nothing was done to arrest the situation. The village also had hardly any infrastructure. The cutting of the road to Kudawa from Weddagala in 1965 was a starting point.

7.1.2. Discussion

Under these circumstances, it appears that in pre-1971 period, with traditional slash and burn cultivation systems (where land was left after the harvest to fallow for several years), left the social- ecological system resilient, retaining same functions and structure; this was the scenario by 1940s. However, the system was clearly moving towards a different stability status due to increased secondary vegetation, with certain fast growing species like kekilla (Dicranopteris linearis) dominant for a longer time.

Driving forces for changes during the pre-1971 was based on local requirements of villagers for a livelihood and space for settlements.

7.2. 1971: Commencement of logging results in a regime shift

7.2.1 Background

In the known history, the first major driver of change hit Sinharaja in 1971; amidst protests, logging commenced on the western sector of Sinharaja. Within two years logging trails and roads were made through the Kudawa village; however, two smaller areas were spared from the areas which were to be logged.

7.2.2. Discussion

Opening up of forest cover, skidding trails, increased number of humans inside the forest, increased noise, vehicle pollutants, etc. that came in with the logging brought about unprecedented changes to the social-ecological system. Loss of biodiversity and changes in the movements of fauna has not been assessed; but yet it seems highly probable that this would have been the case. (Urugodawatte, 1995).

In the social system, the change initially left villagers bewildered for a short while; but very soon they were able to adapt to the new economic opportunities available through the logging industry. (Urugodawatte, 1995). Logging gave the villagers a window of opportunity to self-organize, adapt and maintaining resilience in the system. Villagers supported the logging activities, which brought new sources of income generation to their doorstep. The social links which were mutually beneficial among local and higher levels, such as involvement of the Forest Department, State Plywood Corporation and State Timber Corporation at the national level, regional administrations and above all the international organizations such as FAO, UNDP started increasing the social capital in the system gradually. One of the main driving forces was the international trend of maximum exploitations for human needs; it was taken further by the national government which had restrictive economic policies (promoted exports but severe restrictions on imports) and was adamant to be self-sufficient.

44(91) Considering, how logging in Sinharaja had such a major impact on the social-ecological system, while more or less retaining its functions, structure and the identity by way of self-organization and adaptation, I am of the opinion that it definitely entails to be referenced as a regime shift.

7.3. 1972 – 1977: Gathering momentum

7.3.1. Background

By 1972, environmentalists were able to force the government to confine logging to only a 1200 ha plot. In 1974, mechanized logging stopped due to on-going protests as well as due to realization that the abundance of most sought wood was in reality not available. Selective logging still continued. (IUCN, 1993 and Urugodawatte, 1995). It was later revealed that the original survey done on timber potential which was based on aerial photographs of the area, had been misinterpreted. The reading of the data in the aerial maps, not considering the greenery which are actually degraded forests or agricultural land or private land holdings (mostly home gardens), and above all, the surveys being more general and not specifically targeted at estimating availability of appropriate timber for plywood industry (in terms of species, maturity of plants and location of trees – since some trees can be on areas which are not easily accessible, such as on cliffs or ravines), all has led to this misinterpretation. (Ghosh, 1973). It is estimated that the mechanized logging from 1971 to 1974 alone destroyed half of the primary virgin rain forest cover of Sinharaja. (Urugodawatte, 1995).

7.3.2. Discussion

The effects that logging brought about to the forest ecosystem is multi-fold; it suddenly opened up to a large number of humans trespassing the forest than ever before; destroying of vegetation for logging roads and trails, destruction by the movement of equipment, the noise pollution caused by additional numbers of unconcerned people in the forest as well as the machinery, did have much negative impact on the forest. Disappearing of native species, invasion of alien species, disturbances to natural water cycles, small streams getting dried up due to exposure to too much of sunlight, etc. too have been reported (Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 1985 and interviews with Mr. Aruna). However, exact losses, in terms of biodiversity are yet to be calculated. The ecosystem, after 1974 was less threatened due to selective logging.

In this period, neither the villagers nor the environmental NGOs nor the Kalawana Divisional Secretariat had any say what so ever, in the management of Sinharaja; even the Forest Officers attached to Kudawa Forest Office hardly had any role. Key decisions were taken at national level, but most often keeping in line with global trends and pressures. The governance system and the practices at local level left no room for majority of the stakeholders to participate in decision making neither at the national level nor at the local level in Kudawa. Further, there were several instances that different government departments were promoting contradictory policies in the management of Sinharaja. For instance, in 1971 commercial logging commenced in Sinharaja to supply wood for the Plywood industry managed by the State Plywood Corporation. The trend at that time was to meet the demand for plywood rather than the need to conserve or sustainably use forest resources. This was done by wresting the decision making power of the Forest Department which was responsible for the management of Sinharaja, by the government lobby which gave priority for the country’s timber needs and supported the initiative of the State Plywood Corporation. In this unique case of Sinharaja, we continue to notice how the policies and implementation methods of different governmental stakeholders of Sinharaja, operated at multiple ecological scales interchangeably.

The social system, during this period was one of increasing opportunities for development. Villagers in addition to their employment in the logging related activities were also able to shift to cultivation of tea and rubber. During this time, in many private lands in the Ratnapura District, 45(91) particularly Kalawana area, new tea plantations were established. Main reason was that Ceylon tea was fetching good prices in the world market. This international demand induced the Kudawa villagers also to cultivate tea. In this context, social links were formed not only at the local level but also at the regional level (i.e. government authorities which provide technical expertise and subsidies for tea small holders, owners of tea factories and tea transportation vehicles).

The process clearly denotes the system gradually heading towards a change.

7.4. 1978: From exploitation to conservation

7.4.1. Background

Nationally, logging was banned in Sinharaja and all the logging machinery was removed from the area. The office of the logging company was taken over by the Forest Department and the Kudawa Forest Office was established. Slash and burn cultivation in the forest as well as in the buffer zone were prohibited.

Internationally, UNESCO declared it an International MAB. International recognition increased the importance of Sinharaja, and thus resulted in funds being allocated for its conservation and management.

7.4.2. Discussion

It was as a part of this increased capacity (finances) of the Forest Department that Honduran mahogany (wietenia macrophylla), an alien fast-growing species, was planted along abandoned logging trails to conserve soil as well as an enrichment species. Another alien species, the Caribbean Pinus (pinus caribae), was also planted in rows of four in many peripheral areas in degraded land by the Forest Department to create a live buffer zone in the cleared areas (both by logging and slash and burn cultivation) to prevent encroachment. Although both mahogany and pinus are alien species, due to slow growth rate of then known natural local vegetation, the Forest Department had taken this measure.

The international recognition also brought funds for the infrastructure and other developmental activities in the buffer zone, which benefited the villagers. Villagers also had the second wave of socio-economic opportunities to enhance their socio-economic conditions with temporary employment in plant nurseries, planting mahogany and pinus (pinus caribae) as well as working as casual labourers and providing support service for the infrastructure development of the Kudawa Forest Office. The enhanced income paved the way for increased investments in tea cultivation by more villagers.

When compared with the past, where emphasis was for exploitation of forests for the human benefit, the year 1978 dawned a new era of a totally opposite view on the forest ecosystems; the importance and the need to conserve forests emerged as a key consideration. As I see, this was not merely by coincidence; the green revolution, which was promoted by the international agencies in the 1960s as a panacea for world´s food situation, was losing ground by the 1970s; this also resulted in organizations such as FAO and UNDP paying more attention to the environment. WWF and IUCN was emerging as leading international policy makers in this sphere. Further, the ripple effects of 1972 Stockholm Conference, was also slowly reaching the developing world, including Sri Lanka. (Corell, 2004). However, in Sri Lanka, at this point of time, the emphasis was still more on conservation, rather than sustainable use.

The change in the perception of viewing forests as resources to be exploited for human benefit to one that should be conserved for long-term human benefit itself warrants considering the year as a 46(91) threshold year that brought about a regime shift in the social-ecological system, while yet maintaining resilience.

7.5. 1979 – 1987: Way forward – from conservation to sustainable use

7.5.1. Background

International recognition for Sinharaja, growing environmental consciousness among the general public due to media attention, and national environmental NGOs and NGO networks are part of the institutional framework which denotes this period. The period also witnessed the commencement of research in Sinharaja, starting with botanical studies followed by zoological, anthropological and socio-economic studies. Towards the latter years, research on biodiversity and ecological aspects were commenced.

The period also witnessed increasing resilience in the Sinharaja as well as the buffer zone ecosystem with gradually increasing secondary vegetation in the logged and in areas which were under slash and burnt cultivation. Further, experimental planting of indigenous forest species inside the pinus forests was also proved to be effective. (De Zoysa, Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 1990).

Meanwhile, at the ecosystem level, it had been observed that within a short span of time, 75% of the surroundings of roads and trails where Honduran mahogany (wietenia macrophylla), was planted was becoming dominated by the same at the expense of natural vegetation; it created vulnerability in the system whereby the possibility of disturbed forest areas being reorganized, but resulting in a change to another stability domain with forest patches dominated by Honduran mahogany (wietenia macrophylla), instead of indigenous species. However, realizing the problem and due to public concern about the impact of an alien species invading the natural forests, Honduran mahogany (wietenia macrophylla) was systematically totally removed within six to seven years of planting. (De Zoysa, Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 1990).

The driving forces for the changes in this period were the international regimes that promoted protection of nature, sustainable use of natural resources, people’s participation in management of natural resources which are part of their social-ecological systems. This influenced the national policies as well (i.e. UNESCO’s MAB programme). 7.5.2. Discussion

The afore-mentioned institutional framework, contributed positively for emancipation among some of the Kudawa Forest Officials who took up the task of making suggestions to address shortcomings in the management of Sinharaja. This was done through bringing such suggestions to the notice of the hierarchy in the Forest Department; and through the Department to the ministerial level.

During my interview with Professors Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke it was confirmed that an unexpected phenomenon was observed on the regeneration in the selectively logged areas after around 1986; regeneration in the those areas were much faster (within 10 years) than in areas which were fallowing after slash and burn cultivation, where the regeneration was much slower even after 25 years. They attributed this partly to the fact that logging was done selectively and was cleared for the first time, where as the areas under slash and burn have been re-used several times, resulting in depletion of certain nutrients. Meanwhile, with restricting villagers’ extractions from the forest (which is more effectively enforced by the Forest Department due to having more resources after 1978), wewel (Calamus sp.) went almost extinct in the wild and had to be reintroduced into the wild. (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993).

In post 1978 period, with the commencement of research, another new set of stakeholders entered the scene – the botanists and the zoologists. They too were much dependent on the villagers, 47(91) particularly those who had also worked for the Kudawa Forest Office. In the process many of the villagers were able to work as assistants for such projects and were able to enhance their experience-based knowledge on the Sinharaja ecosystem, with scientific reasoning, irrespective of their level of formal/informal education. In the context that researchers and academics are not always present in Sinharaja, as well as forest officers are transferred time to time, it is the villagers who continues to stay on and act as a link for the incoming personnel. They are the “experts” at the ground and upholders of LEK.

Further, in post-1978 scenario, inputs from the research community also cut across vertically. There is also an increasing trend of appointing researchers and scientists with related research/academic background to the higher administrative positions of the bureaucracy, particularly in the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture, Department of Forests, etc. The role of NGOs and the media also form an effective and an integral part of collaboration across scales both vertically and horizontally. The vertical collaborations as mentioned above have minimized the conflicts such as between the Kalawana Pradesheeya Sabha (local government authority) and the Kalawana Divisional Secretariat. The two institutions, one political and the other administrative, have realized that the recognition of the importance of Sinharaja not only for the nation but also for the whole world is bringing increasing income to the area.

On the other hand, the public awareness and the dialogue among Forest Officers, researchers/ cademics, NGO activists and villagers of Kudawa had its far-reaching impact on the management plans for the Sinharaja in the years to come, although these primary stakeholders did not yet have the power in the decision making at the national level. The researchers/academics also act as important communicators of information from local level to the highest levels (Ministerial level in the national government). However, it should be noted that communication of local concerns to the highest level was in a much ad hoc and informal manner.

Opportunity for several villagers to gain employment (even as casual labourers) in the activities of Kudawa Forest Office, gave much pride to the villagers. It afforded them the opportunity to play an important role in the local management system. It also enhanced their knowledge to a certain extent of the government policies related to environmental protection regimes and underlying theory behind such policies affecting Sinharaja. Being a small village, soon many villagers came to share the knowledge. On the other hand, the forest officers used the expertise of the villagers in identifying species, ecological systems, and unique phenomena such as moving flocks, trails and tracks. LEK was not just acknowledged, it was received by the forest officers most often with much admiration and gratitude. The exchange of different types of knowledge, experience-based and science-based was a special feature that emerged in the social-ecological system during this period.

Among major challenges for the resilience in the system were the lack of enabling legislations that create institutional space for ecosystem management and funds for remedial actions and for monitoring and responding to feedback systems. Further, during the period 1978-1985, many of the constraints for the protection of Sinharaja were identified as socio-economic ones relating to the people and organizations in the immediate vicinity of the forest.

Meanwhile the network among the Kudawa Forest Office, researchers/academics and the villagers contributed to increase in social capital in the study area; this was by way of recognizing LEK of villagers by the researchers and contributions by the Kudawa Grama Niladhari for the first ever conservation plan for Sinharaja.

Impact of 1972 Stockholm Conference and the Earth Summit of 1986 clearly found their way to the national policy makers of Sri Lanka; thus, the first Conservation Plan for Sinharaja which was compiled by 1986 had sustainable use of forest resources and participation of local communities in management as two major features. 48(91)

7.6. 1988: Conservation vs. sustainable use – flaws in national policy

7.6.1. Background

This year was a strange year. The enactment of National Heritage and Wilderness Area (NHWA) Act is the maximum protection regime accorded for forests in Sri Lanka up to date. There are only two declarations made under this act and one is Sinharaja. The National legislation was followed by the recognition of Sinharaja by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in the same year.

7.6.2. Discussion

However, NHWA Act prevents villagers from extracting forest resources; instead it promotes buffer zone development with propagation of species that villagers need to extract. In the context, where certain activities of villagers facilitated resilience in the forest ecological system (i.e. a certain type of cane has to be cut for propagation; banning led to the extinct of this, which was previously used by the villagers for basket weaving. Fortunately there were plants in the buffer zone and the researchers were able to re-introduce the plant to the wild again).

Prohibitions for extraction of forest produce and even entering the forest would result in gradual loss of LEK. The local legislation also forfeited the traditional rights of the people including kitul tapping in the forest.

This strict conservation measures alienating the villagers from the forest was in contradiction to the very principles of sustainable use of forest resources and people’s participation in management of forest resources to maintain the social-ecological resilience; further, it is clearly the opposite of UNESCO’s emphasis on criteria for the recognition of a natural world heritage site. (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom99.htm and http://www2.unesco.org/mab/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=SRL+02 of 10/02/2005). NHWA Act was also a turn back from the principles of sustainable use of forest resources and people’s participation in management of forest resources advocated by the Management Plan - Phase I. In addition, with increased funding for management of Sinharaja for the Management Plan – Phase I, Forest Department took strict measures to comply with “no entry” by the villagers which gave rise conflict of interests between the villagers and the Kudawa Forest Office; the social capital which was being formed gradually at the local level was threatened.

7.7. 1989 – 1998: towards institutionalization

7.7.1 Background

This was the period during which two management plans as described in sections 1.3, 1.4., 5.1 and 5.2 were implemented. Phase II Management Plan was in fact a revision of the first plan, due to problems faced during its implementation. The plans were a result of fulfilling Sri Lanka’s international obligations relating to the environment in general and to Sinharaja specifically. (See Table 11 for international environmental laws, conventions, protocols, etc. that Sri Lanka has signed up to).

7.7.2. Discussion

The period is engulfed with international influences; not only from UNESCO, but also from IUCN and donor agencies, such as NORAD and FINNIDA that basically manipulated the management of Sinharaja according to what they perceive as the best conditions. It must be noted that requirements for continuation of the status of being an International MAB Reserve and a World Heritage Site are 49(91) taken onboard by the Forest Department in its natural course of adaptation to changing/evolving world trends; just as the same world trends ensued logging of Sinharaja. It appears that the validity of international environmental protection regimes are usually absorbed without questioning by the Forest Department unless there is any opposition or challenging that comes from researchers/ academics, NGOs or general public.

I am of the opinion that recognition for LEK by the researchers and the Forest Department was initially incorporated into the Management Plans due to existing international trends. But on the other hand, the researchers/academics have been attempting to document such knowledge for years. Further, the leadership of Mr. Aruna as a local with not only LEK, but also having acquired scientific knowledge to support his ideas was emerging during the period.

The two management plans for Sinharaja were well formulated with effective guiding principles aimed at improving social-ecological resilience of Sinharaja and villages in the periphery. However, what was implemented and how it was implemented is another story. I do not intend to be judgemental on these two issues; instead I wish to consider the fact that still much has been achieved in terms of increasing social–ecological resilience.

This period also resulted in many changes in the socio-economics aspects in the village. As revealed earlier in sections 4.5., 4.6., 4.7., 5.1.5., 6.4. and 6.6., income levels of the villagers have reached considerable levels. (refer Table 9). However, there are many aspects which I view as negative; it is observed that all the proposals for funding contain funds allocated even to the smallest activity which requires physical participation of villagers. In a society where traditionally participation in a voluntary basis in common activities was the norm, the payments for such participation broke down the voluntary tradition in no time. Although later, attempts were made to revive the practice villagers are suspicious; thinking that although they work hard, some one else would take the money allocated for their contribution. (unfortunately it appears that this has happened on few occasions in the past). In fact, this situation has created grave difficulties in obtaining voluntary participation for any common activity now.

On the positive side, villagers have been much more enterprising than one would think. More than the benefits they derived from the buffer zone management activities, tea cultivation paved the way for their economic progress rapidly. Currently about 95% of villagers are engaged in tea cultivation (source: SN).

Further the two plans which brought much funding to the area, also contributed to enhanced co- operation and goodwill among villagers, forest officials and the researchers to higher levels (national level; i.e. Forest Department, ministerial level). As a result of these interactions and trust building, social capital was increasing rapidly in the system. Further, higher income levels of the villagers also made them less interested in forest extractions any way. This is threatening LEK, in addition to threats described earlier in results and analysis sections (5.1.8, 5.2.2., 6.7., 6.8. and, 6.11.) ; However, in an overall context, social–ecological resilience in the study area continued to be resilient. (Dela, 2003).

7.8. 1998 onwards: What does the Future hold?

The period has created an impasse as discussed in the section 6.5. Two major issues are the dependency of villagers on financial incentives (which were created by donor driven the management plans) and their expectations for government employment and government initiated infrastructure facilities. In the absence of additional funds that would provide opportunities to work, (except a few working in the plant nurseries of the Forest Department or as casual labourers) and the forest officials at the Kudawa Forest Office with low public relations skills, the system is loosing its stability. Further, continuous and extensive research with researchers stationed in the 50(91) area for long periods, has not been as frequent as before 1998. Instead several new researchers have been coming for brief periods; in fact, as explained in section 6.1., villagers are even suspicious of the intentions of some of these researchers. The social links are breaking up slowly and thus, leading to a gradual loss of social capital.

In this context, it is interesting to note the role of Mr. Channa, a Forest Guide, who seems to be emerging as a leader, which was discussed in section 6.16.2. In contrast to Mr. Aruna (section 6.16.1) Mr. Channa is functioning when the system is going through an impasse; which is a challenge. How he can manoeuvre through the situation, will be an interesting line to follow; particularly since this is the first time that a group of villages (Forest Guides) have organized themselves (Forest Guides’ Association) on their own initiative to fight for their rights.

At the forest ecosystem level, with the villagers hardly extracting forest produce inside the forest (they still do from the buffer zone areas to a certain extent), the ecological system continues to be resilient. In fact, it is gathering momentum in regenerating, with the experimentation on planting natural species in the pinus (pinus caribae) forests growing towards maturity. However, as discussed in section 6.10., the impact of tea cultivation in the buffer Zone could eventually threaten the forest and reduce resilience.

7.9. The impact of the current governance system on the social-ecological resilience of the study area

The current governance system is within the purview of the NHWA Act, which, as discussed earlier in section 7.6.2., promotes strict conservation measures. However, since the villagers are not dependent on the forest any more, it does not affect the villagers as such. However, occasionally villagers still do extract forest produce and forest officers are aware of this, but continue to ignore it. This practice in a way seems to be an indication of flexibility and type of monitoring, rather than non-monitoring. The Forest Department also now recognises this situation, and is in the process of amending relevant legislations to allow exercise of traditional rights of people inside the forest, including using forest trails to cross the forest to other villages and kitul tapping by permits. (source: discussions with Mr. Bandarathillake).

7.10. Concluding Discussion

This study endeavours to answer the two research questions about changes in the governance systems of Sinharaja forest and the impact of the current governance system on the social- ecological resilience of the study area.

From the results, I perceive that the reason why the governance system of Sinharaja changed was, in part, due to international trends. This can be derived from the complexities in the social-ecological system of the study area under reference, where events occurring at a higher scale affecting on lower scale; commencing in early 1950s, keeping up with international trends and realizing the paramount need for self-sufficiency, the government of the day launched several programmes to develop agriculture and development projects. One of the major industries that was thought to have much potential in Sri Lanka was the timber industry with the emphasis on plywood manufacturing; the timber potential in the country was assessed since 1950s but it was with the assistance and blessings of UNDP and FAO in 1960s that affected Sinharaja; this survey identified a huge potential in Sinharaja (which was later revealed was an over estimation). What happened at the international scale had a drastic impact on the local scale; this is evident from the fact that how the livelihood patterns of the villagers of Kudawa changed after logging commenced. It is interesting to note that prior to logging, villagers, who were almost fully dependent on the forest for their livelihood, including engaged in slash and burn cultivation, the social-ecological system was more or less resilient. Economically and socially they became better off than before with the 51(91) commencement of the logging. However, the issue here is that whether the prosperity achieved in the socio-economic sphere was conducive to the social-ecological resilience of the study area; I perceive that it was not.

Another example is with the influence of the international trends supporting conservation as well as correspondent national lobby, how the logging in Sinharaja was eventually banned and its impact on the villagers of Kudawa; villagers were prohibited from entering the forest which is leading to eventual loss of LEK, an important tool and a basis to commence scientific research. Meanwhile, the existing governance polices encompasses the current international trends promoting sustainable use of forest produce and sustainable development of communities living in forests and in peripheral areas. National policy makers are now accepting the value and the need for limited use of forest produces by the villagers and the local level the Kudawa Forest Office informally allows villagers to extract forest produce in limited quantities. The international recognition, particularly as a World Heritage site, is bringing more and more tourists to Kudawa, which has also become a source of income to the villagers of Kudawa; an impact of an international level recognition at the local level.

Another most striking international trend, which has affected the study area, is the global demand for Ceylon tea. This has opened up new economic opportunities to the villagers of Kudawa, much more than the logging in the 1970s had; in fact, it is totally alienating the villagers from the village and threatening the continuation of LEK rapidly. In fact, in the absence of suitable land, the desire of the villagers to expand their tea cultivation also possess a eminent threat to the forest, not to mention of the impact of gradually increasing use of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicide sprays would have on the soil and the hydrology of the study area.

It is clear from my results that the existing governance system appears to be facilitating the social- ecological resilience. However, the existing governance system and the new policies being drafted currently, does not seem to give due consideration to the alienation of the forest by villagers and the impact of tea cultivation, on the entire social-ecological system comprising of the entire Sinharaja forest and its peripheral villages including Kudawa.

The governance system also has changed due to events and actions on lower scales. The recent floods and the implementation of procedures as to how the foreign funding granted to rehabilitate the area is utilized have created tension between the villagers and the Kudawa Forest Office. Further, tensions due to setting up of a new hotel by and outsider and alleged devious methods being used to attract guests to this hotel and selling liquor, ignoring the problems of forest guides by the Kudawa Forest Office are all localized problems which are reflecting the changes in the implementation of current governance system.

I have also observed trends for adaptive co-management in the social-ecological system discussed. These include the communication of concerns and ideas of the local community to the highest level, including policy makers at the Forest Department and the academics. The method of communication has been informal networking which is very common in Sri Lanka. The current governance system which promotes sustainable use of forest resources by villagers living on the periphery, community participation are equally well understood and accepted at the national, regional and local level. However, the problems lie in implementation, where individual interests may supersede the national interests. One way of mitigate this could be to have equal participation of all stakeholders but this does not exist. I believe that this is culture specific to a great extent. Depending on education level and social class, even if all the stakeholders are allowed to participate in decision-making process, everybody will not speak. Under present circumstances, the best way to create effective stakeholder participation to enhance social-ecological resilience in the study area is through informal discussions at local level.

52(91) My material shows an image of a governance system set in motion by local, national and international level dynamics interacting with each other. These interacting dynamics affect the social-ecological resilience of the study area. On top of this we have the population growth in the area, which has not been looked upon in particular in this study. Population growth leads to higher pressure for land, both for cultivation and settlements. Handling both the interacting dynamics in the governance system and the population growth will be a difficult task in managing the social- ecological resilience of the area.

8. Recommendations

In this context, it is remarkable to note how Kudawa villagers continue to adapt to changing socio- economic and ecological environment in the area. Commencement of logging was the first regime shift that moved the social-ecological system to another stability domain. The economic opportunities that opened up in the process with new jobs related to logging (i.e. clearing logging roads, trails and working on logging sites, etc.) and providing various services for those who came from outside (i.e. accommodation, food, grocery services, etc.) paved the way for new economic prosperity and reduced their dependency on forest resources. Seeing how others in the region prosper by cultivating tea, most villagers shifted to such plantation agricultural crops such as tea, rubber and cinnamon; tea was the most popular due the high prices it fetched. In fact, moving to cultivating tea was because of the impact of globalization; logging was what triggered the regime shift. What happened in 1978 was a total flip over to another stability domain; from exploitation to conservation.

When the context is holistically viewed, it was a benefit accrued by the villagers (a positive outcome for the social system) due to the two regime shifts. Here I observe two trajectories:

i) Empowering and emancipation of villagers to strive for sustainable use of forest resources with community-based programmes (as intended by the management plans) ii) Alienation of forest by villagers, by their own choice (tea cultivation is taking most of their time and dependency on forest is much less; thus, there is no time nor an economic incentive for them to engaged in activities related to the forest, such as monitoring and maintaining/safe guarding LEK)

In the management plans the second issue, (ii) above, was not considered; whether it could have been envisaged or not is another matter for research and discussion. As mentioned earlier, making things worse, the management plans also led to weakening the culture of voluntary participation to one of dependency on monetary incentives.

On a positive note, the management plans gave due consideration and also incorporated most of the local concerns. Further, in spite of the decision making process did not involve equal participation of all stakeholders, particularly the villagers, concerns of villagers were incorporated; this was achieved through informal communications; through the Kudawa forest officials to higher levels of the Forest Department and through researchers to the Forest Department and other higher policy making authorities. Further, almost all those who were involved in formulation of plans were much familiar with the area, due to official responsibilities and or personal interests (nature lovers). The friendly nature of Sri Lankans, particularly the rural people, would not make any visitor to Kudawa leave without been spoken to by a villager. Thus, the interaction with villagers is normal for any visitor. Such cultural habits naturally create room for exchange of information in an informal manner.

As described in the last paragraph of 6.2, there is a substantial income from the entrance tickets to Sinharaja collected at the Kudawa Forest Office. These monies go to the Treasury of the central government. Although the country has devolved power to Provincial Councils to some extent, Local 53(91) Government authorities also have certain powers. Still, when it comes to revenues from most environmental and cultural tourism sites, the collections go to the Treasury of the central government. There is no likelihood that this would change in the foreseeable future and people are learning to live with the issue. However, this is a policy issue which has to be taken up at highest political level in the years ahead.

In the current context, Forest Department cannot continue their task of maintaining social- ecological resilience in the area, without the assistance, participation and above all, the goodwill, of the villagers. Particularly, monitoring of the forest is next to impossible.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Kudawa forest officials could make it a priority to re-establish the diluted social links with the villagers. The first steps have to be taken by the forest officials by initiating a dialogue. The researchers who have been working in the area for a long time can be used to iron out certain differences and contribute for building social capital again. Repairing the road through Kudawa, can be a turning point in winning back the confidence of the villagers. I feel that there is opportunity for such changes particularly with Mr. Bandara heading the Kudawa Forest Office and the emerging leadership of Mr. Channa. Issues of the Forest Guides’ concerning identity cards and uniforms are not much difficult to address as a priority, although giving permanent employment could be. Further, the proposal prepared by Mr. Bandara to obtain participation of villagers (Mr. Bandara is aware of the danger of villagers becoming less dependant on forest resources and its implications for the social-ecological resilience), is something that the Forest Department should immediately pay attention to. The Forest Department also could handle the issues of new lodges that are coming up in the area in order to ensure that the socio-cultural dynamics of the village that contributes to LEK and thereby to social-ecological resilience is not threatened.

It would be appropriate that Forest Department play a pro-active role in developing village infrastructure and initiating regulatory measures by taking the lead and influencing other responsible government agencies. It would ensure that at least the current levels of harmony and cohesiveness existing in the village would continue. Researchers and Forest Department could also make special efforts in documenting LEK and to pursue the village youth to continue with such norms and practices. It may be necessary to enact enabling legislations and even provide economic incentives for such activities now.

Overall, the dynamics of cross-scale interactions vertically from international to local level and horizontally at local level among villagers, researchers and the forest officials as well as cross-scale interaction among all these stakeholder-groups are crucial in maintaining the social-ecological resilience in the system. It is also necessary to include other national and regional level agencies which are affecting the resilience in the system. i.e. Tea Small Holding Authority, Rubber Controller’s Department, Land Commission, Department of Education (both national and provincial), Ministry of Indigenous Medicine.

9. Conclusion

The social-ecological system under reference has its own complexities as discussed above. The resilience of this system depends upon how different stakeholders interact and collaborate to promote sustainable use of forest resources.

Major changes in the governance systems that effected changes in the protection regimes in this context are a result of international trends and forces. It can be said that with the British colonial policies of exploitation of natural resources including forests, which continued to post- independence era (after 1948) and was further affected by the international trends emphasising the green revolution and exploitation of nature as a pre-requisite for development of the mankind. The 54(91) social-ecological system considered here too was not resistant to these international forces; logging of Sinharaja was a result of this. On the other hand, the ban on logging, and laws and practices which kept on increasing the protection of Sinharaja for its high genetic and biodiversity, and international recognition for Sinharaja were all also due international trends and forces. Threafter, the international trends of community-based management of forest resources, sustainable use of forest resources too had their impact on the governance system affecting the social-ecological system discussed.

As discussed in the forgoing paragraphs, it is evident that these international trends were taken on board at national level due to two main reasons; firstly, that it seemed appropriate and intelligent at that particular time; secondly, accepting (or giving in) for such trends and forces, there were many economic incentives not only at the national level, but trickling down to the local level. In a developing country like Sri Lanka, where government does not possess adequate finances to support all citizens equally, funding that came through these type of activities were much welcomed by the villagers. In my opinion, more than realizing the validity of concepts, the monetary factor played the main role to “go with the wind”. I am of the view that if the villagers were not economically marginalized communities, such international trends would have not become a force.

When the changes are viewed from a governance perspective, it is clear that over the years the internationals trends, starting during the colonization period, has brought about continuously evolving protection regimes; from exploitation to conservation and from conservation to sustainable use of forest resources with increasing recognition for LEK and community-based processes; an international trend which encompass economic benefit and development with elements of concern for environment. The same economic and development trends which also uphold the notions of capitalism and globalization, has brought much interest to cultivating tea. This can be attributed to the contradiction that lies within international trends; i.e. fast economic development vs. sustainable economic development.

Another pattern, which has emerged from this study, is the role of researchers/academics involved in Sinharaja related activities. They are the communicators of information and knowledge from local level to regional; from regional level to national, and to international levels and also in the reverse direction. This exclusive role of having social relations with all the levels and having the capacity to bridge the gaps between different levels/scales and among sub groups in different levels, they possess high social capital. This is again due to the Sri Lankan cultural context where educated people are much respected, listened to and believed. Although being an NGO activist is not considered as some thing important, when a researcher/academic becomes an NGO activist it can build the image of the person very much. Their influences and inputs can go a long way at national, regional as well as at local levels.

An interesting trend, which is transpiring from my research findings, is the impact of governance and protection regimes and practices of volunteerism. During early in the British colonial rule in the 19th century, the “Rajakari System” (compulsory participation in common state sponsored activities without economic incentives) was banned. However, voluntary participation in local activities which has been part and part of the Sri Lankan culture, continued. These types of activities are called “Shramadana” (donating labour). Increasing recognition for Sinharaja resulted in bringing funds for activities in the forest as well as the villages; all management plans always had financial allocations for villagers participating in activities which offered a monetary incentive. Monetary incentives, does not create any emotional attachments or commitments as such to the activities. This is a real loss, since for the social-ecological resilience in the study area, there has to be a genuine concern and commitment in the hearts and souls of the villagers.

In my view, the most severe challenge to the social-ecological system under reference emanates from tea cultivation. Already villagers are using chemical herbicides and pesticides; some sprays 55(91) and some are powder types. With wind sprays would spread towards the forest also. As for those added to the soil, might not necessarily pollute the quality of water in the forest, since village is at a lower elevation, but it could affect the species that contribute for decomposition, etc. On the other hand, increase of a monoculture (tea in this case) in the village which is in the buffer zone, would reduce the buffer zone’s effectiveness as a support area for the forest and create a digital landscape; particularly the birds and insects role as pollinators and seed dispersers would be much influenced.

It is evident from the foregoing paragraphs that the influence of changing governance systems as well as other external forces has made much impact on the LEK in study area. Firstly, people like Mr. Aruna was able to enhance their LEK with modern scientific knowledge with long interactions with the scientists engaged in field studies in Sinharaja. Secondly, prohibition for people to extract forest produce was the first step towards alienating people from the forest which led to discontinuation of LEK from older to younger generations. Thirdly, the international demand for tea created an incentive for villagers to engage in tea cultivation. This left the villagers with having no time to go to the forest. Tea cultivation which has high monetary turnover also has resulted in making the villagers’ non-dependent on forest produce for livelihoods. Fourthly, the current trend towards eco-tourism, which is based on modern scientific knowledge, uses LEK mainly to support eco-tourism concepts; the eco-tourist guides are taught of such LEK in a formal manner (classroom or field workshop), rather than informal communications and individual experiencing of various forest phenomena; the formal teaching would only make the eco-tourist guides narrators. Further, LEK they use in the narrations usually excludes LEK practices. These four processes have critical impact on the continuation of LEK, which is a main driving factor for social-ecological resilience. Added with the insufficient scientific studies done on Sinharaja, erosion of LEK could, among others, lead to loss of knowledge on medicinal values of plants, interactions between various species and their impact on each other, loss of clues to begin scientific research, loss of species and even open up possibilities for pest outbreaks and dying of forests. Such impact on the forest would have many consequences for the villagers in the periphery, including Kudawa, mainly through changes in hydrology and microclimate in the area.

Similar to any social-ecological system, Kudawa-Sinharaja social-ecological system is a complex system. Its future resilience depends on how effective the governance issues are addressed while encouraging sustainable use of forest produce. Creating opportunities to continue LEK and inducing villagers to participate in forest-related activities forms the basis for this exercise. However, it is also evident that much consideration has to be given to identify the potential threats that would emanate from tea cultivation practices and expansion of the same.

56(91) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeysinghe, A. (1978). Ancient Land Tenure to Modern Land Reform in Sri Lanka: Since Independence. Vol. II. The Centre for Society & Religion, Colombo Adger, W.N. (2000). Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related? Progress in Human Geography 24: pp347-364. Andrews, J.R.T. (1961). Forest inventory of Ceylon. Ceylon Government Press, Colombo. Arulanantham, J. T. (1982). The effects, if any, on rainfall due to deforestation of the Sinharaja forest, Climatological Notes, No.3 pp169 –173 Baker, J.R. (1937). The Sinharaja rain forest, Ceylon. Geographical Journal 89:pp 539-551. Baker, J.R. (1938). The Rain Forest in Ceylon, Kew Bulletine 1: pp9-16 Bandaratillake, H. M. (1992). Managing the Buffer zone in Sinharaja world heritage forest. Parks. IUCN. Vol.3. No.3. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds.) (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berkes, F. (2000). Rediscovery of TEK as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 10:1251- 1262. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (eds.) (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology. Vol. 18:3. pp621-630 Brohier, R.L.(1934). Ancient Irrigation Works in Ceylon. Ceylon Government Press, Colombo Brohier, R. L. & Paulusz, J.H.O.(1951). Land maps and surveys – descriptive catalogue of historical maps of Surveyor general’s Office, Vol. II, Ceylon Government Press, Colombo. pp44 map no.74 Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional fit. Ecol. Environ. 1(9):479-487. Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Regime Shifts in Lake Ecosystems: Pattern and Variation. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. (now online at http://limnology.wisc.edu/regime/) Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: putting the last first. Longman, London. Dela, J. (2003). The Review of the Sinharaja Forest for UNESCO – 2003. National MAB Committee, National Science Foundation, Colombo Deraniyagala, P.E.P. (1938). The administration report of the Acting Director of the Colombo Museum for 1937. Ceylon Government Press, Colombo De Silva, W.P.T. (1985). Socio-economics of the protection of the Sinharaja Forest: the village factor. Paper presented at the workshop for the preparation of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the Sinharaja Forest. Forest Department, Colombo. (Unpublished manuscript). De Zoysa, N., Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1986). Vegetation studies on skid trail planted with mahogany in the Sinharaja MAB reserve. Sri Lanka Forester, Vol. 7, no.3 & 4: pp142-156 De Zoysa, N. and Vivekanadan, K. (1989), Recent progress in rattan research in Sri Lanka. In Recent research on rattan, N. Rao and I Vongkaluang (eds.), Kasetsart University, Bangkok & IDRC, Ottawa. pp 25-32 De Zoysa, N., Gunatilleke, C. V. S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1990). Comparative phytosociology of natural and modified rain forest sites in Sinharaja MAB reserve, Sri Lanka. In Rain forest regeneration and management, A. Gomez-pompa, T. C. Whitmore and M. Hadley (eds.), MAB Series 6, UNESCO Paris and the Parthenon Publishing Group, Camforth, Lancaster De Zoysa, N. (1992), Tapping patterns of kitul palm (Caryota urens) in Sinharaja, Sri Lanka, Principes, 36(1), 1992, pp28-33 De Zoysa, N. and Raheem R. (1993). Sinharaja: A rain forest. March for Conservation, 57(91) Colombo Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science. 302: pp537-547 Ellawala, H. (1969). Social History of Early Ceylon. Department of Cultural Affairs, Colombo Folke, C. (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of transformations. Ambio Vol. 31. No. 5. pp437-440 Folke, C., Colding, J. and Berkes, F. (2003). Building Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Social- Ecological Systems. In: Berkes F., Colding J. and Folke C. (eds.) Navigating Social- Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 352-387. Folke C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmquist, T., Gunderson, L. and C. S. Holling. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravtez, J. (1992). Three types of Risk assessment and emergence of post- normal science. pp251-273 Gadgil, M., Berkes F. and Folke, C. (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation, Ambio 22: pp151-156 Geiger, W. (1992). “Culavamsa, Being the More Recent Part of the Mahavamsa”, 2 Volumes, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi. (re-print) Ghosh, Sri R.C. (1972). Report on Kosgama Wood Working Complex and Exploitation of Sinharaja Forest: 5th September 1972 Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1980). The floristic composition of Sinharaja - a rain forest in Sri Lanka with special reference to endemics. Sri Lanka Forester 14: pp171- 179 Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1981). The floristic composition of Sinharaja - a rain forest in Sri Lanka with special reference to endemics. Malaysian Forester 44: 386-396 Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1983). A forestry case study of Sinharja rain forest in Sri Lanka. In Forest and watershed development and conservation in Asia and the Pacific, L. W. Hamilton (ed.). Westview Press for East West Environment Policy Institute, Bouder, Colorado. pp289-253 Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Dodanwela, S.K. and Welagedara, D. (1987). Guide to roadside secondary vegetation of Sinharaja. Department of Botony, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Gunatilleke, C.V.S., Dodanwela, S.K. and Welagedara, D. (1987a). Guide to the secondary vegetation of Sinharaja. Workshop on Ecology and Conservation of Tropical Humid Forests of the Indomalayan Realm, 1-5 May 1987. Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (1988). Breeding biology of some under-exploited rain forest plant species of Sri Lanka with a view to their domestication. Bio News, Vol. 4: pp35-41 Gunatilleke, C.V.S. and Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. (2005). Presentation for Eco-tourism promoters, Kandy, Sri Lanka. (powerpoint presentation) Gunawardane, H. P. (2003). “Loka Urumayakwu Sinharaja” (Sinharaja that became a World Heritage). Forest Department, Colombo (written in Sinhala) Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. and Light, S. (eds.) (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecoystems and Institutions. New York, NY: Colombia University Press Gunderson, L.H. and Holling C.S. (eds.) (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington D. C. Gunn, J. (1873). Report upon Sinharaja, the Kukulu Korale forest and Rakwana, Kukulu Korale and Deniyaya Road, papers related to the opening of the Kukulu Korale. Government Printer, Colombo. Vol.30: pp.6-20 Hahn, T. Olsson, P. Folke, C. and Johansson, K. (2004). Informal Institutions and organizational

58(91) innovations in adaptive co-management of wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, Stockholm University. Hapuaarachchi, D. J. A. C., Herath, J. W. and Ranasinghe, V. V. C. (1964). The geological and geophysical investigations of Sinharaja Forest area. Proceedings of the Ceylon association for Advancement of Science 20(1D) Hathurusinghe, D. (1985). Constraints to the protection of the Sinharaja Forest. Paper presented at the workshop for the preparation of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the Sinharaja Forest. Forest Department, Colombo. (Unpublished manuscript). Hoffmann, T.W. (1972). The Sinharaja Forest: A non-technical account. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Ceylon, Colombo. pp21 Hahn, T. (2004), Lecture and notes, 25 October 2004 (International Masters in NGG) Holling, C. S. (eds.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, New York Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4:390-405. Ishwaran, N. and Erdelen, W. (1990). Conserving Sinharaja - an experiment in sustainable development in Sri Lanka. Ambio 19: pp237-244. Jaako, P. (1986). Forestry Master Plan for Sri Lanka: forest resources development project. For the Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Colombo. Jayasekara, P. (2003). Frugivores and food characters in Sinharaja Rain Forest, Sri Lanka. PhD Dissertation. Gifu University, Japan. Karunaratne, P.B., Pieris, T. and Raheem, R. (1981). A research project in the Sinharaja Forest. Loris 15: 326-327. Kotagama, S.W., Karunaratne, P.B., De Zoysa, N. and Weerakoon D. (1986). Faunal studies in Sinharaja rain forest, I – Composition of the vertebrate fauna. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Session of the Sri Lanka Association of Advancement of Science 1986, Colombo, Sri Lanka (abstract only) Kotagama, S.W., Karunaratne, P.B., De Zoysa, N. and Weerakoon D. (1986). Faunal studies in Sinharaja rain forest, II – Study on the mixed-species foraging bird flocks. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Session of the Sri Lanka Association of Advancement of Science 1986, Colombo, Sri Lanka (abstract only) Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus, New York Lewis, F. (1896). Notes on an expedition through Sinharaja rainforest, Ceylon Forester (old series), Vol. 2, no.6, pp84-87 & Vol. 2, no.7 pp107-109. Mc Allister, J. W. (2002). Historical and structural approaches in natural and human sciences. In the future of science sand humanities: four analytical essays and a critical debate on the future of scholastic endeavour, Tindmans, P., Verrijn-Stuart A and Visse R. Mc Dermott, M. (1985). Socio-economics of the protection of the Sinharaja Forest: the village factor. Paper presented at the workshop for the preparation of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the Sinharaja Forest, Forest Department, Colombo. (Unpublished manuscript) Mc Dermott, M. J., and Gunatilleke, C.V.S. (1985). An ethno-botanical survey of twelve villages in Sinharaja. Department of Botany, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya (mimeograph) McIntosh, R. J. (2000). Social Memory in Mande. In the way the wind blows: climate, history and human action, Tainter J. A. and McIntosh, S. K. (eds.). Columbia University Press; New York. pp Mc Neill, W. M. (1940). Working plan for wet zone forests of the south-west of Ceylon for the period 1940 – 1949. Merritt, V.G. and Ranatunga, M.S. (1959). Aerial photographic survey of Sinharaja Forest. Ceylon Forester. 4: pp103-156 Munasinghe, T. and Dissanayake, C. B. (1980). The origins of gemstones of Sri Lanka. Economic Geology 70: pp1216-1225 59(91) Nanayakkara, V. K. (1987). Forest History of Sri Lanka.1887–1987:100 years of forest conservation, Forest Department, Colombo Norberg, J. (1999). Linking nature’s services to ecosystems: some general concepts. Ecological Economics, 29:pp183-202 Olsson, P. and Folke, C. (2001). Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4: pp85- 104 Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Birkes, F. (2001). Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management Vol. 34, No.1, pp75 Olsson, P. (2003). Building Capacity for Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Doctoral Dissertation. Stockholm. Olsson, P. (2004), Lecture Notes Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of the institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, V. 1999. Polycentricity (Part 1). In Polycentricity and Local Public Economies. Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, McGinnis, M.D. (ed.). The Unviversity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp52-74. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302: pp1912-1914 Rajapakse, G. (1975). Report of the committee of inquiry, Kosgama wood working complex and exploitation of Sinharaja forest, Government Printer, Colombo Rosayro, R.A. de (1959). The application of aerial photography to stock-mapping and inventories on an ecological basis in rain forests in Ceylon. Empire Forestry Review 38: pp141-174. Rosayro, R.A. de (1954). A reconnaissance of Sinharaja rain forest. Ceylon Forester. 1(3): pp68-74 Rosayro, R. A. de (1942). The soil and ecology of the wet evergreen forests of Ceylon. Tropical Agriculture (Ceylon). 98: pp70-80 & pp153-175 Scheffer, M., Westley, F., Brock, M. and Holmgren., M. (2002). Dynamics interactions of societies and ecosystems. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in human and Natural Systems, Gunderson, L. H. and Holling C. S. (eds). (2002). Washington D. C., Island Press. pp225-239 Scheffer M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C. and Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: pp591-596 Seneviratna, A.(1994). Ancient Anuradhapura: The monastic city. Archaeological Survey Department, Colombo Siriweera, W. I. (1983). Agriculture in Medieval Sri Lanka. Ceylon Historical Journal. Vol. 25. Smouts, M. C. (1998). The proper use of governance in international relations. International Social Science Journal. 155. pp81-89 Tainter, J. (1988). The Collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press. Urugodawatte, S. H. (1995), “Wanayen rekuna minisa baherin yapei: kudawa gamiyan haa Sinharaja wanaya athra sambandhathawaya” (The man who sustained from the forest seeks livelihood outside: an anthropological study on the relationship between Kudawa villagers and Sinharaja). Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology, Colombo (written in Sinhala) Walker, B. H., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. and Kinzig, A. S. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: adaptive management on the front lines. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (eds). Washington D. C., Island Press. pp333-360 Westley F., Brock and Holmgren (2002). Dynamics interactions of societies and

60(91) ecosystems. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (eds). (2002). Washington D. C., Island Press. pp195- 241 Westley, F., Carpenter, S.R., Brock, W.A., Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, L.H. (2002). Why Systems of People and Nature Are Not Just Social and Ecological Systems. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (eds). (2002). Island Press, Washington D. C. Wijesinha, Mudliyar L.C. (1995). The “Mahavansa”, 2 volumes, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi

Docuements and reports referred which do not cite author/authors:

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living resource conservation for sustainable development. Report IUCN, Gland Effects of deforestation on endemic species, Sinharaja Forest, Sri Lanka. WWF/IUCN Project 1733. Consolidation of the protection of the Sinharaja Forest of Sri Lanka. (1986). WWF/IUCN Project 3307. A conservation plan for the Sinharaja Forest – Draft (1985). Forest Department, Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Colombo and WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Conservation plan for the Sinharaja Forest (1986). Forest Department, Colombo and WWF/IUCN Forest History of Sri Lanka.1887–1987:100 years of forest conservation. (1987). Forest Department, Colombo Sinharaja conservation project, Sri Lanka - Phase II –Draft (1992). Ministry of Lands, Irrigation and Mahaweli Development, Colombo Management plan for the conservation of the Sinharaja Forest - Phase II (1993). IUCN and Forest Department, Colombo Fauna of Sinharaja (1985). March for Conservation. Paper presented at the workshop for the preparation of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the Sinharaja Forest. Forest Department, Colombo. (unpublished manuscript). Caring for the Environment 2003–2007. (2003). Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo. Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sinharaja). World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Summary no.405. 100 Years of Forest Conservation: Centinery publication.(1987). Forest Deprtment, Colombo Sinharaja: Our Heritage. (2002), Reprint. Sinharaja Conservation Series 3, Forest Extension Service, Forest Department, Colombo

Web sites: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/prtected_areas/data/wh/sinharaj. Html http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom99.htm). http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wcp2003/english/outputs/recommnendations.htm http://www.resalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=1114_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC) http://www2.unesco.org/mab/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=SRL+02 (10/02/2005) http://css.snre.umich.edu/1_8_approach.htm - 29/05/05. http:77www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/wh/sinharaj.html(20/03/2005) World Heritage Committee. 2000. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Report of the 23rd Session, Marrakesh, 29 November - 4 December 1999. UNESCO. (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom99.htm

61(91) TABLE 1

Chronology of events for Sinharaja and Kudawa Village

1505 – 1658 During the rule of the Portuguese, in Portuguese “thoombus” (land registers) for tax collection purposes villages such as Kalawana (now a town) and Pothupitiya are mentioned 1789 Sinharaja was demarcated in Dutch maps with clearly indicating the main sources for 2 main rivers, Kalu Ganga & Gin Ganga (Dutch rule from 1658 – 1796) 1840 Sinharaja also became a part of crown property (1796 – 1948, British governed SL) under the Wasteland ordiance which declared all uncultivated or unoccupied land as crown land 1858 – 1864 In George Henry Thwaties first comprehensive documentation of Sri Lanka’s flora (“Enumeratio Plantarum Zelaniae”), numerous references are made to plants found in Sinharaja 1873 Exploration of Sinhraja by James Gunn to ascertain the suitability of the region for coffee plantations and exploitation of timber 1875 By the Gazette notification no. 4046 dated 8th May 2005, 2723 ha. was declared as “Singharajah Mukalana” (Sinharaja forest) 1880 Publication of “History of the birds of Ceylon” compiled by Captain Vincent Legge, soldier-ornithologist, which refers to his observation of birds in Sinharaja 1880 – 1900 Several more publications with reference to Sinharaja 1885 Enactment of first ever Forest Ordinance in modern times 1887 First Conservator of Forests appointed 1896 An account of an expedition by Fredrick Lewis, a forester appeared in “The Ceylon Forester” magazine 1893-1900 Henry Trimen’s “The Handbook to Flora of Ceylon”, further references are made to plants of Sinharaja 1907 Forest Ordinance enacted establishing Forest Department 1909 Expanded to 3,595.5 ha. 1920 Expanded to 4,183 ha. 1959 Aerial photographic survey maps by Merrit & Ranatunga included Sinharaja 1965 Road to Sinharaja from Veddagala was cut. (through Kudawa) 1968 Publication of the UNDP Survey on timber potential of Sri Lanka (potential from all forest land including Sinharaja) State Timber Corporation was established 1970 Forest Department Survey (potential from all forest land including Sinharaja) Mechanized logging commenced in the Morapitiya and Kanneliya Forest Reserves adjoining Sinharaja 1971 Rumanian Feasibility Study (potential from all forest land including Sinharaja) 1970 – 1972 Environmental lobby against the logging in Sinharaja & appointment of the Cabinet Sub-committee 1971 Declaration of 1700 ha of Sinharaja Forest Reserve as IUCN-IBP Strict Reserve with full protection for flora and fauna Commencement of logging (selective logging by State Timber Corporation - STC) 1972 Following a fact finding mission in the wake of logging, Thilo Hoffman, President of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society, documented “Non-technical account” of Sinharaja 1972 – 1977 2025 ha. was selectively were logged by STC 1977 The new government came to power decided to stop logging in Sinharja 1978 Declaration as an International Man and Biosphere Reserve - 6,091 ha of Forest Reserve and 2,773 ha of Proposed Reserve, totalling 8864 ha (now 11,187ha???) Mahogany cultivation on skidding tracks and pine cultivation to create a live boundary on degraded lands bordering Sinharaja was initiated by the Forest Department 1979 Sinharaja Research Station was established 1985 Workshops held to obtain inputs for the formulation of a conservation plan for the Sinharaja Forest 1986 Area was 8,928 ha. Formulation of the Sinharaja Conservation Plan (with assistance from NORAD & GOSL & technical support from IUCN 1988 Declaration as a National Heritage Wilderness Area - 7,648.2 ha. (now 11,187ha) Declaration as a World Heritage Site - 8864 ha (now 11,187ha) Another 2,259 ha. from the peripheral forests were added 1988 – 1992 Implementation of the Sinharaja Conservation Plan - Management Plan for Conservation of the Sinharaja Forest (Phase I) - additional funding for 1992 was provided by NORAD) 1991 “Sinharja Sumithuro” (Friends of Sinharaja) a local NGO, was launched with FD’s facilitation Area increased to 11,187 ha. 62(91) 1993 2nd management plan for Sinharaja was prepared by 2 consultants National Conservation Review was done (one revelation was that in 1 ha. in Sinharaja that there are about 240,000 plant species). 1994 - 1998 Implementation of the Management Plan for Conservation of the Sinharaja Forest (Phase II) 2003 Floods damaged Kudawa Research Station & the road from Veddagala to Sinharaja through Kudawa 2004 Commencement of building the previously unused former log trail as a shorter and more motorable access road to Sinharaja (by FD with ADB finding given to restore damages due to floods to the forest and support areas)

63(91) TABLE 3

An outline of the scales affecting the social-ecological system of the study area

Scale/level Social System Ecological System International Institutions & International Legal Tropical evergreen forests Instruments Institutions such as IUCN, WWF, UNEP, Conventions, Protocols & Covenants which affects Sinharaja ecosystem (i.e. WHS, International MAB, CBD) &UNDP, etc. National Central government & Provincial Wet zone ever green tropical forests government level in the south-western hills & slopes in NHWA Act of 1988, Forest Ordinance, Sri Lanka Fauna and Flora Ordinance, Land Development Act, State Lands Ordinance, Soil Conservation Act, etc. Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources, Forest Department (FD), Land Commissioner’s Department, State Timber Corporation, Dept. of Agriculture, Tea Small Holding Authority, Rubber Controller’s Dept., SL Tea Board, Dept. of Export Agriculture, Dept. of Agrarian Services, Sabaragamuwa & Southern Provincial authorities, politicians, etc. Regional District & Divisional level Sinharaja Conservation Area (SCA) Ratnapura and Galle Distrct Forest Offices designated under Protected Area (Sub Units of Forest Department), Management strategy of FD Ratnapura, Galle & Matara District Secretariats, etc. Divisional Secretariats of Kalawana, Neluwa & Kotapola, local government Authorities, politicians, etc. Local Wasama & Village level Forest areas where the trails are, Kudawa Forest Office, Samurdhi Office, other forest and buffer zone areas Grama Niladhari’s Office, Forest Guides’ used by villagers, impact of Association, Death Donation & Welfare agricultural agri. practices of villagers Society, Samurdhi Society, Rural on the ecosystem, etc. Development Society, Sewa Lanka, primary school, owners of two private eco-lodges.

TABLE 4

Structure of the Forest Department (coming down to the Kudawa Forest Office)

Level Name of office & Location Personnel/designations & No of personnel National Forest Department, (Battaramulla, Conservator General of Forests (01) in the capital city) Deputy Conservator of Forests - Sabaragamuwa (01) Regional District Forest Office (Ratnapura) District Forest Officer – Ratnapura (01) Local Forest Office (Kudawa) Sinharaja Forester (01) Range Forest Officer – Sinharaja (01) Beat Officer, Sinharaja (03) Field Forest Assistants (07) Watchers (Guards) (10)

64(91) TABLE 8

Status of participant in the mixed-species foraging bird flocks

Flock Percentage Status Common Name Species Name occurrence in flocks Nuclear Crested Drongo Dicrurus paradiseus 86 Species *Sri Lanka Rufous Babbler Turdoides rufescens 82 *Yellow-fronted Barbe Megalaima flarifrons 73 *Sri Lanka White-eye Zosterops ceylonensis 63 Yellow-browed Bulbul Hypsipetes indicus 61 *White-headed Starling Sturnus senex 53

Regular Trogon Harpactes fasciatus 47 Orange Minivet Pericrocotus flammeus 46 Yellow-naped Woodpecker Picus chlorolophus 46 Red-faced Malkoha Phaenicophaeu pyrrbocephalus 45 *Ashy-headed Babbler Garrulax cinereifrons 42 Azure Flycatcher Monarcha azurea 39 Pied Shrike Hemipus picatus 36 Black-fronted Babbler Rhopocicbla atriceps 34 *Legge’s Flowerpecker Dicaeum vincens 33 Tickells’ Flowerpecker Dicaeum erythrohynchos 33 Velvet-fronted Nuthatch Sitta frontalis 31

Occasional *Layard’s Parakeet Psittacula calthorpae 29 Black-capped Bulbul Pycnonotus melanicterus 29 Southern Scimitar Babbler Pomatorbinus borsfieldii 25 Black Bulbul Hypsipetes madagascariensis 23 Crimson-backed Woodpecker Chrysocolaptes lucidus 23

Rare Purple-rumped Sunbird Nectarinia zeylonica 17 *Sri Lanka Grackle Gracula ptilogenys 16 Greenish Tree-Warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides 14 *Sri Lanka Lorikeet Loriculus beryllinus 12 Orange-breasted Blue Flycatcher Mussicsa tickelliae 12 White-vented Drongo Dicrurus caerulescens 11

Very rare Common Iora Aegithina tipbia 10 Large-billed Tree-Warbler Phylloscopus magnirostris 08 Grey Tit Parus major 07 Gold-fronted Chloropsis Chloropsis aurifron 07 Black-headed Oriole Oriolus xanthornus 07 Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradise 03 *Spotted-winged Thrush Zoothera spiloptera 02 Bronze-winged Dove Chalcophaps indica 02 Red-winged Crested-Cuckoo Clamator coromandus 01 White-backed Munia Lonchura striata 01 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus 01 Black-headed Cuckoo-Shrike Coracina melanoptera 01 *Sri Lanka Brown-capped Babbler Pellorneum fuscocapillukm 01 Indian Blue Chat Erithacus brunneus 01

*Endemic species (source: Zoyza and Raheem, 1993)

65(91) TABLE 9 Income and sources of income of villagers of Kudawa Wasama

Kitul Slash & Rice Plantation Collecting Collecting Cane Other REMARKS tapping burn cultivation agriculture resins from cardamoms& industry cultivation (i.e. tea, the forest other spices rubber) from the forest Before Population 50 50 12 - 30 30 06 - - 90% of the families engaged in both kitul 1971 tapping & slash & burn cultivation Income* 150 (subsistence 170 360 120 720 - - Rice cultivation in 12 acres only) - Resin per person pluck: approx. 20 lb., 15 days per month, 1 lb. approx. 15 cents. - Cardamom per person pluck: 7–8 lb. - Casual labour: males – 40 cents & females 25 cents 1972 - Population 30 12 04 - 50% of the families engaged in kitul tapping, 1978 Income* 1440 8400 43520 1lb. jaggery cents 80 – Rs.1.60 - Rice cultivation in 12 acres - Tea plantations in 4 acres, 1 lb. tea 08 cents - Rubber plantations in 50 acres, 1 lb. Rs.3.00 1979 – Population 15 22 40 - I kg jaggery Rs.30.00 1988 Income* 10000 216000 - Rice cultivation in 12 acres - Rubber cultivation in 40 acres, 1 kg rubber Rs.15.00 1989 - Population 39 25 - I kg jaggery – Rs.70.00 1993 - Rice cultivation in 25 acres Income* 126000 336000 - Rubber plantations in 25 acres, i kg rubber Rs.30.00 1994 - Population 40 25 - Rubber cultivation in 15 acres 1998 Income* 168000 360000 After Population - 95% engaged in tea plantation 1998 Income*

• Income* - In Sri Lankan Rupees & the income is given per year for the entire population • After 1993, 782 persons (222 families) in Kudawa Wasama are living and cultivating in buffer zone lands which belong to the government. There is no private land ownership. • Source: Kalawana Divisional Secretariat and Samurdhi Niladhari, Kudawa Wasama

66(91) TABLE 10

Key policies, legislation and institutional changes concerning the management of natural forests in Sri Lanka during the 20th century

Year Policy/Legislation/ Provisions for Forest Management Institutional Changes (Authority) 1907 Forest Ordinance No. 16 (Forest Protection of forests and their products within reserved forests Department - FD) and village forests, primarily to provide for controlled (first ever Forest Ordinance was exploration of timber. enacted in 1885) 1912 to Forest Ordinance amended several Introduced a provision for a reward fund and to eject 1995 times encroachers Increased punishments 1929 First authoritative Forest Policy Removed the requirement for import and export license. Export of timber and forest products, self sufficiency in timber and fuelwood Preservation of indigenous fauna and flora 1937 Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance Protection of wildlife in national reserves and sanctuaries and (FFPO) No. 2 (FD) out side such protected areas 1938 Forest policy amended Clearing of forests prohibited above 5,000 ft. (1,500 meters) 1948 Establishment of Department of Wildlife Administration of Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. Conservation (DWLC) Management of protected areas declared under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. 1953 National Forest Policy (FD) Emphasis on conserving forests, increase supplies of small wood, maintain sustained yield of timber 1964 Amendment Act No. 44 to FFPO Nature reserves and jungle corridors incorporated as (DWLC) categories of national reserves 1968 Establishment of State Timber State organisation for harvesting and marketing of timber from Corporation state owned natural forests and forest plantations 1970 Amendment Act No. 1 to FFPO (DWLC) Intermediate zone envisaged as a buffer zone to provide for controlled hunting, was removed from Ordinance 1970 UNESCO Man and Biosphere Establishment of arboreta representative of the main bio- Programme climatic zones 1980 National Forest Policy amended (FD) Involve local communities in forestry development through social forestry 1982 Mahaweli Environment Project Network of Protected Areas established to mitigate the impact (Mahaweli Development Ministry) of the Mahaweli Development Project on wildlife and to protect catchment areas 1986 Forestry Master Plan (FD) A long-term framework for development of the forestry sector 1988 National Conservation Strategy (Central In line with Forestry Master Plan Environment Authority - CEA) 1988 National Heritage and Wildness Areas Protection of state land having unique ecosystems, genetic Act No. 3 (FD) resources or outstanding natural features 1990 National Policy for Wildlife Conservation Objectives include the maintenance of ecological processes (approved by the government) and preservation of genetic diversity 1990 Forestry Sector Development Project – Logging of natural forests banned Accelerated and National Environmental Management component Conservation Reviews carried out (assessment of (FD) conservation values of natural forests) 1993 National Environmental Regulations No. Requirement of EIA for extraction of timber from forests and 1 under the National Environmental Act forest plantations exceeding 5 ha. And conversion of forests (CEA) into non-forest uses exceeding 1 ha. 1990 – Rapid Appraisal To ascertain the ecological value of 30 natural forests 1991 covering 48,000 ha. in the wet zone 1991 – National Conservation Review (FD) To assess biodiversity in most parts of the country with natural 1996 and “near” natural forests larger that 200 ha. in extent. 67(91) 13 forest clusters were identified representing most of Sri Lanka’s biological diversity. 1994 National Environmental Action Plan Incorporates chapters of forestry and biodiversity Recognition and emphasis on community-based forest management 1995 Amendment to Forest Ordinance No. 16 Incorporated a new category of forest reserves call (FD) Conservation Forests purely for conservation purposes. 1995 Forestry Sector Master Plan – FSMP A comprehensive long-term framework for sustainable FD) development of the forestry sector.(1995 – 2020) 1997 Five-year Implementation Programme of Short and medium-term development programme for the FSMP forestry sector 1998 Framework for Action for Biodiversity Emphasis on value of biodiversity, identifying threats for Conservation in Sri Lanka (Ministry of reduction of biodiversity, etc. Environment and Natural Resources - References to special areas to be conserved as core areas MENR) 2003 Caring for the Environment 2003 – Sections on forestry which highlights community-based 2007: Path for Sustainable Development management of natural resources as a way for empowerment Policy document and poverty alleviation (Source: Bandarathillake, 1992 & Caring for the Environment 2003 – 2007 policy Document)

My comment:

As it is evident from the above, the Forest Department, keeping up with international and national trends, has changed its original perception of looking at forests as sources of timber, towards promoting conservation and sustainable use of forests. This is amply evident from the key thrust areas in the current National Forest Policy of 1995 which include the role of forest and environment, forest land tenure, forestry and land use, suitable development, conservation of forest ecosystems, recognition of research and education priorities, inter-institutional links in forestry development and people and forests (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources). There has also been a remarkable reorientation of forest management practices in the country during the past decade or so with growing acceptance that complete restriction of the use of forests by local people can be counter productive to achieve forest and biodiversity conservation.

68(91) TABLE 11

Sri Lanka’s obligations under international agreements relating to conservation and management of forests

Entry International Agreement Obligation(s) 1970 UNESCO Man and To establish a system of Biosphere Reserve representative of Biosphere (MAB) Programme natural eco-systems to conserve genetic diversity & promote conservation. Two International Biosphere Reserves & 34 national Biosphere reserves have been identified by the Forest Department 1980 World Heritage Convention Protection of cultural & national properties deemed to be of outstanding universal value. Sinharaja Forest has been listed as a Natural World Heritage in 1988 1992 Forest Principles, UNCED, To contribute to sustainable management of forests & to provide for 1992 their multiple & complementary functions & uses 1993 UN Framework Convention Emphasize the role of forests as carbon sources & sinks. The on Climatic Change convention facilities development of implementation & payment (UNFCCC) protocols covering forest offsets paid for by parties in other countries 1994 Convention on Biological Provides for conservation of forest ecosystems & species, through Diversity (CBD) set-aside of representative protected areas, but also in the context of sustainable use, rehabilitation on & equitable access & benefit sharing

(Source: Bandarathillake, 1992 & Caring for the Environment 2003 – 2007 policy Document)

69(91) FIGURE 1

70(91) FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

71(91) FIGURE 4

72(91) FIGURE 5

Sinharaja World Heritage Site and International Man and Biosphere Reserve

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

73(91) FIGURE 6

Devolution of power – corresponding administrative and political structures

Political System Administrative System (responsible for making policy) (responsible for implementing policies)

National Cabinet of Ministers headed by the Secretaries to the Ministries Level Prime Minister

Secretary of Minister of Public Minister of Secretary of Ministry Ministry of Administration Samurdhi of Public Samurdhi Administration

Provincial Provincial Council Chief Minister & Chief Secretary & Secretaries of 03 Provincial Level 03 Provincial Ministers Ministries (Regional)

District Secretaries (Formerly Government Agent)

Local Municipal Councilors (of big cities) Divisional Secretaries (formerly Level Urban Councilors (of big towns) Assistant Government Agents) Pradesheeya Sabha Members (of smaller towns and clusters of villages - Wasama)

Headquarters Grama Niladharis

Grama Samurdhi Niladharis Niladharis

NOTES: • Subject areas covered by the national government is different from Provincial government. • Samurdhi Ministry is responsible for the policy on government welfare assistance particularly to low-income earning people. • District Secretariats come under the purview of the Ministry of Public Administration. They (District Secretariats) implement policies of both national and provincial governments. However, the implementation is done by Divisional Secretariats. • Today, the actual functions of District Secretaries include coordinating the activities of Divisional Secretariats which comes under its purview, coordination of matters at times of disasters/emergencies, elections and census. • Grama Niladharis and Samurdhi Niladharis are at a level of cluster of villages (Wasama). Grama Niladhari is the government administrative officer at the lowest level, usually in charge of a few villages; Grama Niladharis have police powers. However, it is interesting to note that his position has obscured merely in to a position of settling occasional land disputes, due to multiple roles of the Samurdhi Niladhari, whose role affects the lives of villagers more). Samurdhi Niladhari’s jurisdiction is similar to Grama Niladhari, but is involved in poverty alleviation initiatives in the village and coordination and distribution of government welfare handouts • Headquarters Grama Niladhari is a position which is given to a very senior Grama Niladhari and there are not many in the country like that. They coordinate work of Grama Niladhari Divisions (Wasama) and are usually stationed at the Divisional Secretariat. • The Samurdhi Ministry works through the District Secretariats through Divisional Secretariats, with Samurdhi Nalidharis at Wasama level. However, there are instances when there are also direct interactions at the operational level between the Ministry and the Divisional Secretariat/Wasama level.

74(91) APPENDIX 1

Note on the historical background of forests and forest policies in Sri Lanka

Forests of Sri Lanka

The primeval rain forests of humid southwest lowlands of Sri Lanka dates back to ancient flora of the Deccan plate. The Deccan Plate have separated from the rest of Gondwana fragments in the early Cretaceous period and drifted northwards during the early Palaeogene period. The evolution of a high percentage of endemic species common to Sri Lanka and peninsular India is attributed to this time. The drifting plate collided with the southern shores of Laurasia in the mid – Eocene. (De Zoysa N. and Raheem R. , 1993).This geological heritage coupled with diverse terrain and climatic variation no doubt contributed to Sri Lanka being the country with highest biodiversity in the whole of Asia (Baldwin (eds.) 1991); thus, providing an interesting research field for those who are interested in biogeography, ecology, evolutionary biology, etc. of South and Southeast Asia.

Ocean

Land Land

Tropical forests forests

During the days of the Sinhala Kings (Pre-1815) “Kele Korales” (Forest Officers) were appointed by the Kings to protect the forests, which most often belong to the King unless it has been granted as a gift to a subject. (Forest Department, 1987). In 1885 the Forest Ordinance was enacted by the British colonial government. A Conservator of Forests was appointed in 1887 and the Forest Department was subsequently established in 1899.

75(91) Clearance of forests

Clearance of forest for settlements started along the river basins during the period 200 B. C. to 1250 A.D. (Siriweera, 1983). Vast network of irrigation system to supply water for extensive rice cultivation, involved the construction of reservoirs, with precision technology. Diversifying river waters has already begun by the beginning of the Christian Era which further contributed to clearing of land. After the 13th century, with the shift of centres of power from the dry zone towards the wet zone, thereby the populations too, irrigated agriculture was almost abandoned (Siriweera, 1978). The movement of population to the wet zone reached a threshold in the 16th century when the European colonizers started exporting valuable timber from the wet zone forests. However, the most severe impact was befallen on these forests when the montane, sub-montane and low land rain forests were cleared for plantation agriculture, such as tea, coffee, cinchona and rubber, during the British colonial rule (Forest Department, 1987).

The first plan for the forestry sector in the modern era in Sri Lanka was formulated in 1940 (Mc Neill, 1940) with the objective of exploitation of timber. This was also the first plan involving Sinharaja.

Among all vegetation types it is the lowland wet zone forests in Sri Lanka that contain 60% of country’s endemic flora and are also the richest natural vegetation type (Gunatilleke and Gunatillake, 1980). Unfortunately, these forests are being continuously converted in to urban, plantation and agricultural lands and are increasingly becoming further vulnerable to the extraction of timber. Most of these forests are fragmented and are located among human settlements.

In the post independence era (since 1948), both dry zone and wet zone forests were further cleared by large and medium scale development projects which consisted of extensive irrigated agriculture, hydro power generation and human settlements. The loss of natural forests due to the Mahaweli Development Project was around 243,000 ha. in 1980s (Bandarathillake, 1992). The forest cover which was 82% of country’s total land area in 1881, was reduced to 22.4% by 2000.(Gunawardane, 2003). Illicit logging and slash and burn cultivation methods also contributed to the decline of forest cover. As a result of these historical processes, the total natural forest cover had been much depleted. Nanayakkara (1987) and others also have conducted surveys and have estimated the trends of rapid depletion of forest cover.

The largest block of relatively undisturbed lowland evergreen rain forest is the Sinharaja International Man and Biosphere Reserve (Sri Bharathie, 1979). It consisted of 8,864 ha. (Forest Department, 1986). Now it is 11,187 ha.

Population growth and depletion of forest in Sri Lanka

In spite of this negative trend, it was revealed by a survey done in 2003 by the Forest Department that the forest cover is at 29% with natural forests, scrubland, open forests, secondary forests and plantation forests. In fact, this figure of 29% is quite a high figure for the region. However, fragmentation of forest lands is more alarming than the depletion itself; which creates vulnerability in the ecological systems due to dwindling support areas that could assist in regeneration after a disturbance.

Year Population in millions Forest cover as a percentage of land 1881 3.50 82.00 1900 4.60 67.10 1956 8.48 42.70 1983 15.40 23.75 1992 17.34 23.08 2000 19.00 22.40

(Source: Department of Census and Statistics and Forest Department)

Moving from exploitation to conservation and sustainable use of forests

Forests in Sri Lanka come under the purview of the Forest Department, which was established in 1887 and is functioning under the Conservator of Forests. It was one of the important government departments under the British colonial rule; so important that in 1907, British Secretary of State at the time has insisted that appointments to senior grades of the Forest Department in Ceylon (as how they called Sri Lanka then), should be men with Oxford University Degree.

Beginning with the idea of forest as a wealth of resources awaiting to be exploited, particularly timber, over the years, national policy on forests has changed considerably; to one of conservation and to sustainable use. 76(91)

The National Forest Policy formulated in 1980 emphasises the ecosystem services while highlighting the need to ensure an increase of extraction of timber for agricultural requirements and fuel wood for domestic purposes as well as sustainable extraction of timber for other requirements of the country; nevertheless, it also emphasis to “work the forest for the highest possible economic advantage” considering aforementioned objectives and “to involve local community in the development of social forestry” (Nanayakkara, 1981, 1987).

Nevertheless, the government was deeply concerned by the rapid depletion of forest cover and a Master Plan and a Five- Year Investment Plan was formulated in 1986 with the assistance from the World Bank and FINNIDA. However, this plan too included logging of wet zone natural forests! Naturally it drew the wrath of the academics, environmental NGOs such as Wild Life and Nature Protection Society, and the general public; the result was that logging was banned, not only in wet zone natural forests, but in all natural forests in the country; a remarkable achievement in recent times for the public. (interview with Gunatilleke & Gunatilleke, 2005). Implementation with revisions, was commenced in 1990.

In the period of 1990 – 1991 a raid appraisal was conducted to ascertain the ecological value of 30 natural forests covering 48,000 ha. in the wet zone. This was followed by a National Conservation Review between 1991 – 1996 with the objective of assessing biodiversity in most parts of the country with natural and “near” natural forests larger that 200 ha. in extent. It confirmed that wet zone forests are the most important of all forests in Sri Lanka for biodiversity, soil and water conservation, especially as they are the home for most endemic reptiles and amphibians, about 50% of the endemic fresh water fish and about 80% endemic bird species. Consequently, 13 forest clusters were identified representing most of Sri Lanka’s biological diversity. This survey has estimated that these forest clusters represent 70% - 80% of the country’s biodiversity. Each cluster is required to have a management plan.

The current National Forest Policy and the Forestry Sector Master Plan (FSMP) of 1995, prepared for the period 1995 – 2020, identify biodiversity conservation as a key objective of forest and wildlife conservation. Both these advocate utilizing traditional approaches for forest management by enabling greater involvement of local people in planning and managing protected areas.

77(91) APPENDIX 2

GUIDING QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS

General Questions:

• How far the objectives of this 1985 document have been fulfilled? • When was the Forest Department established? • To which Ministries did the Department of Forests belonged from its creation (I believe it was in 1907) • Departments and Ministries to which the subjects of land and land settlement belonged to since early 1920’s. • When was the State Timber Corporation established? • When was the State Plywood Corporation established & when was it dissolved? • When was a separate Ministry for environment and forestry established (not the exact title, but ministries which had these 2 world in the titles) • Departments and subjects that came under the purview of above mentioned ministries • When was the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) established? • Influences/activities by plantation crop small holders in the periphery on Sinharaja & villagers of Kudawa

Management/Administrative Structures:

• Sinharaja is managed by two Range Forest Offices- find out the structure • The Forest Department structure coming down to Sinharaja Forest Office in Kudawa • Authority and powers at different levels and how it has changed over the years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) • Who collects the revenue from visitors and to which govt. authority it goes to? Can the revenue be used for development of facilities for visitors or for development of forest? • NGOs in Kudawa, Kalawana, regional and National level who are working closely with Kudawa and Sinharaja • Role of Police covering Sinharaja and Kudawa • Powers vested in the Land Commission • Power of FD over the Land Commission, Timber Corporation and Plywood Corporation? • Political interventions (district MPs as well as Kalawana Pradeeshiya Sabha - politicians at local government level) in land distribution, illegal timber extraction, poaching, gemming, permits for kitul tapping, rice cultivation (?), slash and burn cultivation (?) etc.

Formulation of Conservation Plans:

• how were the team identified? Degree of inputs from local stakeholders (villagers, local government authorities, local politicians, Sinharaja Forest Office staff)? • Role of Conservators of Forests, Role of Ratnapura Government Agent/District Secretary, role of Kalawana Divisional Secretary (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) • Role of Martin Wijesinghe (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) • Role of Professors Gunatilleke & Dr. Kotagama, Dr. De Silva, etc. and whether there ideas, decisions were influenced by Martin.

Socio-economic development of Kudawa - For Kalawana DS, KHGN – KDS, Kudawa GN & SN

• When was Kudawa established? • What are the government administrative structures in Kudawa? Closest school, govt. medical centre, agricultural extension office, forest office, research & education centre? • The ownership of land among the Kudawa villagers? • Population & Livelihoods of people -pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards (changes, support from govt. in changes and other external support), statistics on family wise - age, gender, education, occupation, family income, ownership of land – tenant, illegal, leased, etc. and extent, types of crops cultivated, varieties in home gardens)

78(91) • Extractions from forests – how it has changed (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) Æ statistics showing change, items and reasons, development of home gardens • Dependency on kitul tapping, cane extraction, collection of herbs & spices (venivel, cinnamon, cardamom, etc.), slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation, extraction of fuelwood, collecting resin and income from the same (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) • Alternative livelihoods development (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) and income from the same, assistance given by govt. or NGO authorities to get in to alternative livelihoods • Logging – perception of villagers (different ages, gender, occupation)? • Declaration as MAB & WHT: are the villagers aware? Are they happy or proud? • Monitoring by villagers (for illegal activities from within the village or outside) • Do the villagers think that their concerns are reflected in the management plans? Are they aware of such management plans? • What are the expectations of villagers in terms of “development” in their village? • The local ecological knowledge among younger generation? Does the younger generation happy in the village or want to move out? What are their aspirations (fro themselves, concerning the village & concerning Sinharaja? • What do the villagers think about the buffer zone plan? • What does the villagers think and from their experience – local knowledge) impact/effect of mahogany and pine plantations

Common Questions to all categories (villagers, former Conservators of Forests, Academics, NGO personnel & Government Agents(GA)/Divisional Secretaries (DS) of Ratnapura and other bureaucrats) below:

• What are current affiliations? • Declaration as MAB and WHS – perception? • Considering people as a part of the ecosystem – acceptable? • The concepts of social-ecological resilience, ecosystem approach, conservation of nature for humanity and not for nature, etc. – aware of? Acceptable? Relevance and practicability? Opinions? • Multi-stakeholder participation in planning – aware of? Acceptable? Does it happen? • Consideration/acceptance of local knowledge and local level participation in decision making, implementation and monitoring of management plan • Decentralization of power (in the context of forest management) – Acceptable? Relevance and practicability? • Views on planting of pine and mahogany & logging • Views in extractions by villagers • Personal views on appropriate governance and sustainable development

Questions to villagers:

• Did they have inputs to the management plans? • Influences of local or regional or national or international NGOs on academics concerning Sinharaja – good? Bad? Or what? • Satisfied with the outcome (recommendations)? • Do they feel that they are important stakeholders? • Relationship with FD officials at national and regional level, researchers/academics • Relationship with various stakeholders in Kudawa (Sinharaja Forests Office, GN in Kudawa, local NGOs, villagers, etc.) • Extractions from forests – how it has changed (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) & perceptions • Dependency on kitul tapping, cane extraction, collection of herbs & spices (venivel, cinnamon, cardamom, etc.), slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation, extraction of fuelwood, collecting resin and income from the same (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) – views • Alternative livelihoods development years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 onwards) and income from the same, assistance given by govt. or NGO authorities to get in to alternative livelihoods - views • Participation in decision making at local level, in monitoring – does it exist? Agreeable? • The current management plan for Sinharaja and how it is implemented – ARE THEY CONTENT? • Views on poaching and illegal gemming

79(91)

Questions to former Conservators of Forests (CF):

• Why the management plans? • How was the team decided? (by the Ministry, By Department, By IUCN or combination) • Powers vested in CF in deciding the committee/participation • What sort of influences were there to include non-govt. actors in the committee (was in from local or regional or national or international NGOs?) • Satisfied with the outcome (recommendations)? • Was adequate funding available and from where? • Satisfied with staffing and resources to implement and monitor the plans? • Demarcation of boundary – has it been completed? Is CF satisfied? • The powers vested in the Sinharaja Forest Office Æhow it increased over the years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) • Constraints for implementation of management plan (limitation in resources? management structures/systems? others?) • Who made the decision to plant pine and mahogany in the buffer zone of Sinharaja? (were there feasibility studies done prior to introducing alien species? • Why were local varieties used??? (experiments at Bandarawela Neo-synthesis Centre???) – What does the FD think? • Extractions from forests – how it has changed over the years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) & perceptions • Dependency on kitul tapping, cane extraction, collection of herbs & spices (venivel, cinnamon, cardamom, etc.), slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation, extraction of fuelwood, collecting resin and income from the same (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) – views • Alternative livelihoods development (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) and income from the same, assistance given by govt. or NGO authorities to get in to alternative livelihoods – views • Opinion on powers vested in the State Timber & State Plywood Corporations? • Past and present official relationships between State Timber Corporation & FD and State Plywood Corporation C & FD

Questions to academics:

• Were the academics given adequate voice to express their concerns for the inputs to the management plans? • Influences of local or regional or national or international NGOs on academics concerning Sinharaja • Satisfied with the outcome (recommendations)? • Research activities carried out and the relationship with CF, Ratnapura GA, Kalawana DS, Sinharaja Forests Office, GN & SN in Kudawa & villagers • Extractions from forests – how it has changed over the years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) & perceptions • Dependency on kitul tapping, cane extraction, collection of herbs & spices (venivel, cinnamon, cardamom, etc.), slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation, extraction of fuelwood, collecting resin and income from the same (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 – 1998, 1999 onwards) – views • Alternative livelihoods development years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) and income from the same, assistance given by govt. or NGO authorities to get in to alternative livelihoods - views

Questions to NGO personnel:

• Were the NGOs given adequate voice to express their concerns for the inputs to the management plans? • Satisfied with the outcome (recommendations)? • Involvement of NGO personnel in research activities • Extractions from forests – how it has changed over the years (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 - 1998, 1999 onwards) & perceptions

80(91) • Dependency on kitul tapping, cane extraction, collection of herbs & spices (venivel, cinnamon, cardamom, etc.), slash and burn cultivation, rice cultivation, extraction of fuelwood, collecting resin and income from the same (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) - views • Alternative livelihoods development (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994 . 1998, 1999 onwards) and income from the same, assistance given by govt. or NGO authorities to get in to alternative livelihoods - views

Questions to Government Agents(GA)/Divisional Secretaries (DS) of Ratnapura and other bureaucrats:

• Was the GA given adequate voice to express their concerns for the inputs to the management plans? • Powers of GA – is it adequate (pre 1971, 1972 – 1978, 1979- 1988, 1989 - 1993, 1994- 1998, 1999 onwards) • Influences of local or regional or national or international NGOs on GA concerning Sinharaja • Satisfied with the outcome (recommendations)? • Responsibilities of GA as per the plan & was there adequate funding available?

81(91) APPENDIX 3

Note on features of Sinharaja: location, extent, physical environment and biodiversity

Extent and Location - Sinharaja

The Sinharaja forest is situated in southwest lowland wet zone of Sri Lanka between latitudes 6º 21’N and 6º 26’N and longitude 80º 21’E to 80º 34’E. The present reserve is occupying a narrow stretch of land, 21 km in length, 7 km in width at the widest point and 3 km at the narrowest point. It covers an area of 11,187 ha. (Figures 1, 2 & 3). Surrounding the Sinharaja Reserve, there are several other stretches of forests, which all together cover an area of 47,370 ha. This stretch of forests represent 43% of the total wet zone forest cover (rain forests) and Sinharaja alone accounting for about 10% - 11% (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993).

It spans over three administrative districts of Ratnapura (Sabaragamuwa Province) Galle and Matara (Southern Province). The Forest falls within the purview of five Divisional Secretariats within the districts. The village Kudawa, in the northwestern boundary of the forest, belongs to the Kalawana Divisional Secretariat of the Ratnapura District. It is a part of Kudawa Wasama which consists of four other villagers (IUCN, 1993).

SRI LANKA

(Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005)

Physical Environment of Sinharaja

Most areas of Sinharaja consist of mosaic of parallel ridges and valleys with east-west trend changing to northwest- southeast towards the west. The highest point is in the north-eastern sector – the Hinipitgala Peak, rising 1170 m from mean sea level while other important ridges in south-eastern and north-western sections of the forest range between 550 – 800 m in height (IUCN 1993).

Geologically Sinharaja lies within the transition zone of two important rock types characteristic of Sri Lanka; namely the south-western group of meta sediments, charnokites and scapolites, and the highland group of khondalites and charnokites. A significant feature of Sinharaja is the presence of “Sinharaja Basic Zone”, a geologically unique condition which districts the area form the central hills and Sabaragamuwa hills of south western Sri Lanka. (Munasinghe & Dissanayake ,1981). See below:

82(91)

Sinharaja gets an annual rainfall in the range of 3,000 – 6,000 mm. The temperature ranges from 20° C to 25° within the forest. In Kudawa it ranges from 22.5° C to 34° C. Relative humidity ranges from 80% to 95% in the forest. The forest consists of nearly 200 small streams which are feeders for 2 of the largest rivers of Sri Lanka and thus, its importance as a watershed area is immense. (De Zoysa & Raheem, 1993).

Mean annual rainfall data available for locations in and around Sinharaja

Location Elevation Time Mean Annual Source (m) period Rainfall in mm Beverly Estate 635 1925 - 4054 Baker - 1937 (soiuth-eastern boundary of the forest) 1935 Weddagala (north-western boundary for 275 1948 - 3691 Maheswaran – 1982 the forest) 1970 Kudawa (north-western boundary for the 340 1980 - 3614 Maheswaran – 1982 forest) 1981 SinharajaField Station (3 km within the 380 1981 - 5006 March for Conservation north-western end of the forest) 1984 (MfC) - 1986 (Source: De Zoysa & Raheem, 1993)

Monthly distribution of rainfall and temperature from 1981 – 1989 recorded at the Field Research Station in Sinharaja

(Source: De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993) 83(91) Biodiversity and endemic species

Out of Sri Lanka's 830 endemic species of plants, 217 trees and woody climbers are found in the lowland wet zone. 139 (64%) of these species have been recorded in Sinharaja, of which, 16 are considered to be rare. Vegetation density is at 240,000 individuals per ha, with 95% in the ground layer. The vegetation structure varies with topography and consists of several layers of vegetation: canopy, sub-canopy, under-storey treelets & shrub layer, ground layer, root climbers which are at different levels of maturity. (See below for a cross section of the forest) Another unique feature in Sinharaja is the high degree of species localization with respect to spatial distribution (Gunatilleke & Gunatilleke, 1980, 1981).

Cross section of the forest

(Source: Gunawardane, 2003) Among recorded 709 vertebrate faunal species in Sri Lanka, 139 are endemic. In Sinharaja, out of recorded 262 species, 60 are endemic to Sinharaja. Elephants were common in the past, have not been observed on the western sector since the logging started in early 1907s; but small herds have been reported in the far North-eastern side. 54% of the Sri Lanka’s amphibian species are found in Sinharaja, while among these species, 50% are endemic. (De Zoysa and Raheem, 1993). Refer Table 10. 19 (95%) out of 20 species of endemic birds in Sri Lanka have been sighted in Sinharaja. Most of these bird species are habitat-sensitive (Kotagama, Karunaratne, De Zoysa and Weerakoon, 1986).

Endemic and non-endemic vertebrate fauna of Sinharaja in relation to the fauna in Sri Lanka

Vertebrate Total no. No. of % of No. of No. of % of % of group of species species in species in endemic endemic endemic endemics in SL Sinharaja Sinharaja species in species in species in out of total SL Sinharaja Sinharja in Sinharaja Fish 59 11 19% 16 3 19% 27% Amphibia 37 20 54% 19 10 53% 50% Amphibia – 65 16 25% 34 6 18% 36% reptiles Amphibia – 79 29 37% 38 15 39% 52% Tetrapod Birds 384 147 38% 20 18 90% 12% Mammals 85 39 46% 12 8 67% 20% Total 709 262 36% 139 60 43% 23%

(source: Kotagama, Karunaratne, De Zoysa and Weerakoon, 1986)

84(91) PICTURE 1

Housing THEN: Wattle & daub; raw material obtained from the forest and environment and leaves for roofing – Beru and coconut

A family in front of their wattle & daub A Beru thatched roof – view from inside house with coconut thatch a) & Paddy b)

A closer view on Beru thatching

NOW: Brick and cement constructed houses with tiled/asbestos roofs, solar powered…….

A family in front of their house made with cement Note the solar panel on the roof blocks and asbestos roofing sheets

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

85(91) PICTURE 2

Village life is closely intervowen with Kitul (Caryota urens)

Kitul sap (flower)

A man climbing a kitul tree

Art of juggery making

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

86(91) PICTURE 3

PICTURE 4

87(91) PICTURE 5

Under growth in pinus plantations Pinus enrichment trial in Sinharaja buffer zone

In 1994

In 1999

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

88(91) PICTURE 7

A private eco-tourism enterprise in Northwest of Sinharaja in Kudawa

Directions to the Blue Magpie Lodge at the turn off from Kalawana – Weddagala main road

A bird´s eye view of the Blue Magpie Lodge

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

89(91) PICTURE 8

Land use in the Buffer zone

Before 1970s (note the domination by kekilla in the right picture)

After early 1980s (note the pinus)

Now (note the domination by tea cultivation)

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

90(91) PICTURE 9

The Forest Department Administration Facility at Kudawa

Source: Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 2005

91(91)