Sri Lanka's captive elephants

On September 9, Zoological Department Director General Ishini Wickremesinghe?stepped down?from her post, citing personal reasons. However, a workers union later said that the true reason for the resignation was a decision to release 14 elephants in the custody of the National Zoological Gardens Department?back?to their original owners. The elephants were being?held?at the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage and Elephant Transit Home in Udawalawe.?

"Wickremesinghe is extremely unhappy about this order, as it would release the elephants to the owners who have allegedly captured them from the wild,"?President of the Sri Lanka Podujana National Zoological Gardens Department Workers’ Union Krishantha Christopals?said. (The State Minister for the Construction of Electrical Fences and Trenches, Reforestation, and Forest Resource Development, Wimalaweera Dissanayake?denied?Wickremesinghe had resigned over the elephants, though he acknowledged she had voiced her disapproval.)

The August 19 gazette

The decision to move the elephants follows a gazette passed on August 19, which?aimed?to 'improve working conditions of domesticated elephants.' However, conservationists?say?the real purpose of the guidelines is to allow for the registration of elephants which have been illegally acquired - thus legitimising smuggling. A group of environmentalists are already?challenging?the decision in court.?

As Director of the Environmental Foundation?Rukshan Jayawardena?highlighted, the gazette included guidelines for the use of elephants for tourism, logging and the hauling of weight - practices which had been discontinued up until recently. The gazette also included?specifications?on the ankus - a goad used for elephants that is no longer used in several countries as it’s a cruel method of elephant control.?

Senior environmental lawyer Jagath Gunawardena thinks the Attorney General’s department?overstepped?its mandate in determining custody of the elephants, which he says should be determined by the Director General of the Department of Wildlife. The gazette?also?contravenes the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which specifically prevents the commercial misuse of wild animals.?

Among other things, the gazette allowed for the?registration?of elephants via biometric identity cards, regular health check ups, maternity leave, unlimited sick leave and a 'maximum of four hours of work a day.' The framing was so reminiscent of a standard employee contract that I couldn't help?snark-tweeting?about it. As it turns out though, this framing has?precedent?from countries like India, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand.?

Courtesy Senthiaathavan

Registration from India to Thailand

In 1998, Uttar Pradesh?announced?it would give maternity leave to pregnant elephants, who were used to patrol state forests and also give rides to tourists, plus two paid attendants.?Last year, India's environment Ministry tabled a proposal that promised wild elephants protection and recognised the need to protect their natural migratory pathways. But the proposal didn't have clauses for elephants already in captivity (in India, the?majority?of captive elephants were held by private individuals). India's Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 prohibits capturing elephants from the wild, but an exception was made for elephants in captivity at the time, through issuing ownership certificates. Meant to be a temporary mechanism, this has?now?been misused to continue the practise of capturing elephants.?

In Lao People's Democratic Republic,?deforestation?threatens the habitat of wild elephants, and poaching is an issue as well. The government has?placed?restrictions on the use of elephants for transporting wood for the logging industry, but there continue to be captive elephants, which are?registered?with the Department of Livestock and Fisheries - although private owners are restricted to owning one elephant.?

In Myanmar, the 2016?logging bans?to combat deforestation may have unexpected consequences for their elephants, who are often used to transport wood. The bans mean that elephants, especially privately owned elephants, no longer earn their owners money, which means less funding for their care. The government also?owns?and cares for over 2900 elephants through the?state institution the Myanma Timber Enterprise (MTE).?Both MTE and the Forest Department?work together to register elephants. Though the government's elephants are?said?to be better cared for as they do have a veterinarian on hand, calf mortality statistics (25% of the government owned calves die before age 6) reveal that the stress of taming is a common cause of death.?

In Thailand, the spread of COVID-19 has led to the?closure?of elephant 'camps' for tourists. Many of the elephants, leased from owners who lived outside cities, trekked hundreds of kilometres, and owners hoped they would forage for their own food once they returned. Although there has not yet been documented incidents of malnutrition or starvation (since the community has also banded together to provide food), there were also incidents of elephants being chained again, in order to avoid them straying into agricultural land. And in camps,?chaining?and lack of exercise continues. In 2016, a?law?was passed to require DNA registration of elephants - their previous system which used microchips and photos, could be easily forged, leading to smuggling of wild elephants into tourist camps.?

Read the full newsletter here.