Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 44 (2): 1-26, 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v44i2.7347 Author’s email: sriyanie.miththapala@gmail.com LEAD ARTICLE Conservation Revisited Sriyanie Miththapala 165/12 - 5/1 Park Road, Colombo 5. ABSTRACT This paper proposes that Sri Lanka’s nature conservation efforts are hampered by the lack of a clear understanding of the meaning of the word conservation. This lack of understanding then impedes effective implementation of conservation actions. It revisits terminology to obtain clarity of the definition of conservation. Inherent in many current definitions are the following. 1) Humans are integral to conservation biology. Anthropogenic activities drive the loss of biodiversity, necessitating conservation, but humans must be a part of the solution; 2) Preservation, maintenance, enhancement, restoration and sustainable use are all elements of conservation. The difference between preservation and conservation is clarified. The paper assesses gaps in current conservation measures, as: 1) lack of practice of true conservation in Sri Lanka that includes all its elements; 2) lack of focus on landscape-scale conservation; 3) lack of focus outside protected areas; 4) lack of negotiation with decision-makers using a tender that is understood by them; 5) lack of congruence between conservation knowledge and conservation practice; 6) complacency with regard to Red Listing™; 7) inadequate prioritisation of conservation research; 8) inadequate predictive research; 9) lack of research on the impact of climate change on species and ecosystems; and 10) focus on a sectoral, rather than a holistic approach. The paper concludes by providing recommendations for future actions. Keywords: conservation, preservation, management, ecosystems. INTRODUCTION Sri Lanka has a long history of protecting its natural resources (BDS, MoERE, 2014). The Mahawansa chronicles that both rulers of the kingdom and its subjects valued and protected animals and forests (MoFE, 1999). As early as 1907, the Forest Ordinance (No. 16 of 1907) was enacted for the protection of some forests and their products, and, by 1937, the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (FFPO) was, in turn, enacted to afford protection to some species (UNEP, 2009). Currently, there are some 15 laws and some 30 organisations directly focused on nature conservation (BDS, MoERE, 2014); and Sri Lanka is party to 32 multilateral environmental agreements (MoENR, 2008). About 28% of the land area is protected under the aegis of the Forest Department, Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Central Environmental Authority (BDS, MoERE, 2014). Most forests of the wet zone and many mangroves are protected under the aegis of the Forest Department (BDS, MoERE, 2014). Sri Lanka is one of the few Asian countries that has engaged, since 1987, in the preparation of threatened species lists (Abeywickrama, 1987): two in 1989 (Wijesinghe et al., 1989) and 1993 (Wijesinghe et al., 1993) that were based on subjective assessments of risks of extinction; and later, since 1999, three iterations that used global Red Listing™ criteria for assessment (IUCN, 2000; IUCN and MoNRE, 2007; MoE, 2012). A fourth iteration, using globally accepted criteria is being prepared for 2016 (MoMDE, 2015). The latest amendment of the FFPO (No. 22 of 2009) affords protection to a quarter of the indigenous flowering plants of the island, including all native orchids; all species of Odonata and Lepidoptera, and over 90% of species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (FFPO, 2009). On paper, Sri Lanka appears to have a range of mechanisms and tools to conserve its natural wealth. Why then is there, across ecosystems, continued habitat destruction, the prime driver of species loss? Natural forest cover was 29.6% of the total land area in 2010, a reduction from 44% in 1950 (BDS, MoERE, 2014). Reclamation and degradation of wetlands (inter alia through pollution, changes in tidal inflows/ outflows/ hydrological alterations) continue (BDS, MoERE, 2014; Samarakoon and Samarawickrama, 2012). Why then are invasive alien species (IAS) spreading in protected areas — such as Bundala and Udawalawe National Parks — posing threats to native species, which are meant to be protected within these areas? Why then are more than 50% of 2 Miththapala species of dragonflies, freshwater crabs, land snails, freshwater fish, amphibians and reptiles considered Threatened with extinction (MoE, 2012)? What is even more distressing is that 124 species of inland vertebrates are listed as Critically Endangered (Weerakoon, 2012). In other words, one in every six species of native vertebrates of Sri Lanka is under severe threat of extinction (Weerakoon, 2012). This paper proposes that Sri Lanka’s conservation efforts are hampered by the lack of a clear understanding of the meaning of the word conservation. This lack of understanding then impedes effective implementation of conservation actions. This paper will revisit terminology, to obtain clarity of the definition of conservation. As Salafsky et al. (2008) note ‘an essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon.’ The paper will then examine inherent assumptions in given definitions, address misconceptions, assess gaps in current conservation measures and provide recommendations for future actions. What is conservation? A clear understanding of what conservation is, obviously, a prerequisite for developing and expressing conservation goals and actions (Redford and Richter, 1999). Rampant among many scientists, decision-makers, practioners and laypersons is the misconception that preservation is conservation. Preservation is often interchanged with the word conservation, resulting not only in ‘a terminological muddle’ (Robinson 1993 and Norton 1994 in litt. Redford, 1999) but also confusion in management. The first person to couple the words conservation and science was Michael Soulé in 1985. He defined conservation biology as ‘a new stage in the application of science to conservation problems, [that] addresses the biology of species, communities, and ecosystems [which] are perturbed, either directly or indirectly, by human activities or other agents. Its goal is to provide principles and tools for preserving biological diversity.’ This definition has since been refined and re- fashioned. Appendix 1 presents a list of definitions of conservation, extracted from various sources, including popular sources such as dictionaries. Inherent in many of these definitions are the following. 1. Humans are integral to conservation biology a. As the veteran biologist George Schaller (2007) notes, ‘conservation problems are social and economic, not scientific . . .’ ; b. The Sri Lanka National Strategy and Action for Mangroves for the Future (2009) describes ecosystems as ‘socio- ecological systems’; c. Conservation issues ‘cannot be separated from issues of values, equity, and social justice’ (Ludwig, 2001); d. ‘People dominate landscapes’ (Seidensticker, 2008); e. ‘Humans are and will continue to be a part of both natural and degraded ecological systems, and their presence must be included in conservation planning’ (Meffe et al., 1997); and f. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2008) and IUCN/UNEP (1980) explicitly define conservation as management of human use of natural resources. The conundrum that many biologists face it that although anthropogenic activities drive the loss of biodiversity, necessitating conservation, humans must be a part of the solution. 2. Preservation, maintenance, enhancement, restoration and sustainable use are all elements of conservation (Figure 1). I maintain that sustainable use is part of conservation, and not, as commonly used, separate from it, as often stated, for example, in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). I use the definition of the first World Conservation Strategy (IUCN/UNEP, 1980) that clearly itemises each of the above ‘Thus conservation is positive, embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment.’ (Figure 1), and highlighted the change that management can effect on exploitation, i.e., make it sustainable. The Global Biodiversity Strategy promoted the concept that the elements of biodiversity conservation were ‘save, study and use’ (WRI, IUCN, UNEP, 1992), again stressing that sustainable use was part of conservation. This inclusive definition allows for a clarity of understanding and much easier paths to action. The above definition clarifies the difference between preservation and conservation. Conservation includes sustainable use, but preservation does not. Preservation is the maintenance, in present condition, areas of ‘wilderness’ (or near wilderness), with little or no human intervention (Meffe et al., 1997). 3. Because conservation encompasses such a range of actions, it is, therefore, effectively management (Figure 1). Preservation, maintenance, sustainable use, restoration and enhancement all require management. Conservation Revisited 3 Figure 1. Elements of conservation There is no ecosystem or area in Sri Lanka, or, in fact, anywhere else in the world, that is free of any anthropogenic presence. Aldo Leopold, considered the father of wildlife and wilderness management in the USA, appreciated, as early as 1949, that landscapes were ‘cultural landscape[s] . . . transformed (Seidensticker, 2002). Meffe et al., (1997) note ‘Conservation efforts that attempt to wall off nature and safeguard it from humans will ultimately fail’. 4. Also inherent in this context of conservation that includes humans, is compromise. Often conservation actions are pitted against development needs and then, there is a need for negotiation and compromise. The best case scenario is rarely possible. Ludwig (2001) states that ‘[t]ension between science (which is devoted to the pursuit of truth) and politics (which is devoted to the pursuit of power) is an important obstacle’. Not inherent in the above definitions, but nonetheless essential in the practice of conservation is the knowledge and acceptance of the following concepts: 1. Ecosystems are not only complex and often unique, but also dynamic (CBD, 1992). Ecosystems processes are rarely linear, and therefore ecosystems interactions and processes are always complex. As Ludwig (2001) succinctly states ‘[t]he conservation of forests, the conservation of endangered species, and climate change are examples of “wicked problems,” as defined by Rittel and Webber (1973). Such problems have no definitive formulation, no stopping rule, and no test for a solution. There will likely never be a final resolution of any of them. Each such problem is unique: They defy classification.’ This means that solutions related to their well- being will also, necessarily, be complex and each solution, unique. Because ecosystems are dynamic, predictability relating to a process or change is extremely limited, if not impossible. Therefore, each solution for their conservation must also be bound within a temporal scale, i.e., must be adaptive. 2. Ecosystems exist within a ‘heterogeneous landscape’ (Meffe et al., 1997) forming a mosaic of interconnected units (Kallesöe et al., 2008). The importance of this fact in conservation is twofold. Firstly, an individual species can exist as sub-populations in isolated habitats as a metapopulation (Levins, 1969; Hanski, 1999), and if habitat conditions permit, these subpopulations can be linked to support immigration and emigration (Meffe et al., 1997). Secondly, ecosystems are affected by actions taken both within and without their boundaries (Meffe et al., 1997). This is clearly 4 Miththapala seen on coastlines, where human impacts in catchment areas of upland forests can have detrimental impacts on coastal systems such as lagoons, estuaries, mangroves, seagrasses and coral reefs (Samarakoon and Samarawickrama, 2012). 3. Also critical to a concept of conservation is the acceptance that conservation is a crisis discipline. As Soulé (1985) and Ludwig (2001) state respectively ‘A conservation biologist may have to make decisions or recommendations about . . . management before he or she is completely comfortable with the theoretical and empirical bases of the analysis’ and ‘typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent’. The provision of recommendations based on incomplete knowledge is a risk that faces all conservation biologists (Meffe et al., 1997). We need to change our current model of conservation, because business (management) as usual, has not and is not stemming the tide of loss biodiversity. As Ludwig (2001) notes, ‘If the old ideas of management don’t work, [we need to figure out] what will . . .’ Identified gaps The holistic definition of conservation, and the implicit and explicit caveats that enfold a different concept of conservation, discussed in the previous section, led me to assess the major gaps in conservation in Sri Lanka and make recommendations to fill them. True conservation that is inclusive of all its elements is not practised in Sri Lanka It is laudable that Sri Lanka has some 28% allocated as protected areas under the jurisdictions of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, the Forest Department and the Central Environmental Authority (BDS, MoERE, 2014). With many additions of national parks by the DWC, the current percentage is much higher now. The Department of Wildlife Conservation oversees 24 national parks (with two more to be gazetted in the next few months) (DWC, 2015; DWC, personal communication). Formulation of management plans is mandated under the revised FFPO (2009) and under the GEF- funded Protected Area Management (PAM) Project, some eight management plans were developed and others are currently being developed as well (DWC, personal communication). Yet, much of the effort of management has been focused on infrastructure development — such as boundary marking, erection of sign boards, construction/repair of offices, repair/purchase of vehicles; road building/repair and electric fencing (ADB, 2010; DWC, 2012). Habitat enrichment is confined to removal of invasive alien species, tree planting, construction of new water ponds and maintenance of fire belts (DWC, 2012). Less attention appears to ecological and conservation principles related to the dynamic nature of ecosystems as exemplified by the current plight of elephants in Udawalawe National Park. Ecological succession is a natural process by which abandoned land reverts to mature forest (Meffe et al., 1997). In the 1960s, a combination of logging and chena cultivation artificially created a savannah ecosystem in Udawalawe: scattered trees among grasslands (Fernando, 2015a). Elephants were driven into the area, and a national park was established in the 1970s (Fernando, 2015a). Guinea grass (Panicum maxicum), an exotic grass, became established and spread, providing fodder for elephants year round (Fernando, 2015a). Fires, usually set alight by farmers, that encouraged the growth of guinea grass, were banned. Udawalawe became famous for its elephants. However, with no management measures to keep succession in check, natural processes took over and the grassland transformed into forest (Fernando 2015a), leaving the elephants deprived of food. The elephants of Udawalawe are now emaciated. ‘Conservation’, in this example, was merely the isolation of both elephants and habitats, with no reference to natural processes, rather than habitat management to preserve a seral stage to support for the famous elephants of Udawalawe. In addition, the management of humans within the national parks of Sri Lanka is virtually non- existent. Yala National Park, popular with both local and foreign visitors, is over-visited, with one third of all visitors to national parks flocking there (SLTDA, 2014), causing traffic jams at the entrance to and within the park. This over-visitation is layered with irresponsible behaviour, resulting in the deaths of several animals (who have been run over by speeding vehicles), including, in the last three months, nine spotted deer and since 2011, two leopards (which are listed as Endangered) and a jungle cat (Near Threatened) (Malaka Rodrigo, personal communication; MoE, 2012). The bottom line is that we are not engaging in proactive conservation. There are several urgent questions that need answering in relation to our protected area network. What are our goals in relation to each protected area? What is the overall goal for each protected area — i.e., what is it managed for? What are our specific targets and plans in relation to the overall goal and in keeping with ecological principles? For example, if a general goal is to conserve the endemic birds of Sri Lanka, which are the protected areas that need to Conservation Revisited 5 manage for this goal? What specific objectives should then be formulated and actions developed to meet these objectives? Also a major issue is that, barring a spike of mostly ill-planned mangrove re-planting after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 (Samarakoon and Samarawickrama, 2012) and efforts by the Forest Department to reforest degraded forests (BDS, MoERE, 2014), ecological restoration is not mainstreamed into conservation, although several national plans have called for restoration (CCS, MoENR, 2011, CCS, MoENR, 2010). A study by IUCN (2011a) revealed that there were 1,1167.67 hectares of abandoned prawn farms in divisional secretaries divisions of Vanatavillu, Puttalam and Kalpitiya in the Puttalam district. Such land is ideal for ecological restoration. Pethiyagoda (2012) argues that marginal habitats should be ‘viewed as a conservation opportunity rather than a threat’ as his analysis shows that many threatened species use these habitats. Enhancement of such marginal lands will assist in increasing the survival of such species. Lack of focus on landscape-scale conservation The lack of focus on a landscape approach to conservation is important for several reasons. Firstly, ecosystems are not isolated and exist as mosaics of interconnected units across a heterogeneous landscape. Much of Sri Lanka’s forests in the wet zone are small fragmented patches. A recent study by Kittle et al. (2014) shows that the island’s apex terrestrial predator, the leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) is found in fragmented forests in the central hills as small as 5 km2. This means that even small forest fragments remain important for species conservation and maintaining or enriching these fragments, will contribute to the conservation of leopards. A distribution map of leopards generated by the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment (2012) for the Red List, shows leopards living outside protected areas. Researchers have found that other wide-ranging species such as elephants (Elephas maximus) have home ranges that lie not only within protected areas, but also partially and completely outside (Fernando et al., 2008). The conflict that ensues when natural movement of such species is thwarted by human habitation or cultivation is a serious problem for the Department of Wildlife and makes national news. Later studies revealed that elephants in human-dominated areas tend to have larger home ranges than others, the size determined by the availability of food and that they use fixed cross over points between habitat patches (Weerakoon et al., 2004). Fernando categorically states that the conservation of elephants requires a landscape approach (Fernando, 2015b). The above examples illustrate clearly the need for establishing connectivity between forest/habitat patches in a heterogeneous landscape, albeit based on scientific knowledge of the movement of wide- ranging animals. The long term resilience of such species may be dependent on establishing connectivity (also known as corridors, linkages, ecological networks) between fragmented habitats using science-based knowledge (Seidensticker, 2015). Since 2007, several national documents have highlighted the need for establishing linkages between fragmented forests (MoENR, 2007, 2009, 2010; MoERE, 2014).Yet the practice continues of largely establishing isolated protected areas with little effort to connect them. For example, seven national parks have been declared since 2011 (DWC, 2015), but the attempt to link protected areas is far from adequate. Secondly, without a lens that views landscapes from ‘ridge to reef’ (R2R) (IUCN, 2015), impacts on coastal ecosystems from anthropogenic actions inland cannot be managed. The impacts of upstream activities on the coast is exemplified in a study by Dahdouh-Guebas et al. (2005), who used remote sensing and ground-truthing and compared these data to ancient maps, to reveal drastic changes in mangrove distribution as a consequence of altered river hydrology of the Walawe Ganga. The third reason for concern of the lack of focus on a landscape approach is that it largely ignores humans, who are an integral part of the landscape. If one looks at a map of Sri Lanka, it is obvious that despite Sri Lanka’s admirable efforts at establishing protected areas, many of these areas lie in a sea of human habitation and other forms of land use, such as cultivation (Figure 2). That villagers living around protected areas feel the full force of impacts of wildlife straying out of national parks is dealt with largely a posteriori, or by fencing in animals within national parks. Contrast this approach to that of the management of Chitawan National Park in Nepal — home to tigers and rhinoceros — where, since 1993, a thriving community forestry/guardianship programme ensures that the profits of the national park are channelled towards the improvement of local communities, and making it possible for ‘potentially dangerous mammals . . . to successfully coexist with the nearly 300,000 people living in thirty-six villages adjacent to the park’ (Seidensticker, 2008). 6 Miththapala Figure 2. Sri Lanka’s protected areas superimposed with land use (Source: Land use: Survey Dept. 2007; Protected areas: MoE, 2012) Conservation Revisited 7 Lack of focus outside protected areas It is obvious that with a finite extent of land, there are increasing anthropogenic demands upon this land. Instead of setting aside more and more protected areas — which are then left unmanaged or not managed properly, as noted in the previous section — the focus could be on areas outside protected areas, enriching them to increase biodiversity. Even where there is heavy human footprint — such as in cultivated areas — it is possible to increase biodiversity, for example, with the practice of ecoagriculture. The ecoagriculture framework, introduced by Jeffrey McNeely and Sara Scherr in 2003, has the following characteristics: 1. It is large-scale: Ecoagriculture is practised at a landscape level (understanding that species are not only integral parts of ecosystems, but that many inter-connected and inter-dependent ecosystems form a mosaic in a larger landscape). 2. It emphasises synergies: Ecoagriculture seeks to find synergies between agriculture and ecology and promote them. 3. It recognises the importance of conservation: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identified the importance of ecosystem services to agriculture but ecoagriculture recognises that native biodiversity has an intrinsic value and also seeks to find environmentally-friendly livelihood strategies (Buck et al., 2006). Ecoagriculture uses six strategies for the practice of ecoagriculture: 1) creates biodiversity reserves that benefit local farming communities; 2) develops habitat networks in non-farmed areas of agricultural landscapes; 3) reduces land conversion to agriculture by increasing farm productivity; 4) minimises agricultural pollution; 5) modifies the management of soil, water and vegetation to increase natural capital; and 6) designs farm systems to mimic natural ecosystems. Simple actions — such as leaving shelterbelts, windbreaks, tree rows between cultivated areas; retaining roadside vegetation; intercropping, increasing crop diversity; reducing water and soil pollution — will increase diversity. Lack of negotiation with decision-makers using a tender that is understood by them Our conservation rhetoric has not served us well in the last few decades, given the continuing loss of biodiversity. We need to seek a new way of conveying the message of the urgency needed in conservation to persons who are not biologists and therefore, do not understand the complexities and uncertainties inherent in conservation biology. We need to be able to obtain the best possible compromise in negotiating with decision-makers in the context of a drive for development. Since 1983, when Ehrlich and Mooney presented a concept that intact ecosystems provided services that bettered our lives, environmental valuation has become available as a tool for conservation biologists. Then, in 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment clearly linked ecosystem well-being and human well-being. Suddenly, conservation biologists had a tool that allowed for the presentation of the value of the services ecosystems provide in hard currency, and it became possible for conservation biologists to present a species or an ecosystem as an ‘economic asset, not a liability’ (Seidensticker, 2010). The Strategic Action Plan 2011-2020 presented by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity is a ‘shared vision, a mission, strategic goals and 20 ambitious yet achievable targets, collectively known as the Aichi Targets’ (CBD, 2015). Target 2 deals specifically with valuation of biodiversity and the incorporation of such values into national accounting (CBD, 2015). This approach of valuing nature has its critics (inter alia, Erickson, 2000; Go´mez-Baggethun and Pe´rez, 2011; McCauley, 2006; Rodríguez-Labajos and Martínez-Alier, 2013; Sagoff, 2008; Schröter et al., 2014; Soulé, 2013). However, the morality of an environmental ethic ‘that there is some ‘higher’ value residing in Nature which humans have at least an obligation, and perhaps a duty to [pre]serve‘, while appealing to many, does not provide a practical solution for the conservation of biodiversity and ‘may have little substantive influence in policy arenas’ (Pearce et al., 2007). ‘The economic approach send[s] signals to those who make the decisions to destroy diversity that they may want to think and act differently’ (Pearce et al., 2007). For example, in the Maldives, marine and coastal tourism — the largest industry in the Maldives — directly accounts for 20% of GDP and its wider effects help produce 74% of national income. Tourism contributes more than 60% of foreign exchange receipts, over 90% of government tax revenue comes from import duties and tourism- related taxes, and almost 40% of the workforce is employed in the industry. Because such figures are integrated into the national accounting, the coral reefs of the Maldives are afforded more protection than if they were not (Emerton, 2006). In Sri Lanka, there has been a steady rise of environmental economic studies and valuation of ecosystems over the years (inter alia, Bandara et 8 Miththapala al., 2001; Bandara and Tinsdell 2005; Batagoda, 2003 in Kallesøe et al., 2008; Dharmasena and Bhat, 2011; Emerton and Kekulandala, 2002; Herath, 2001; Piyadasa and Thiruchelvam, 2005; Ranasinghe and Kallesoe, 2006; Rathnayake and Gunawardena, 2011; Rathnayake, 2015; Wattage, 2011). An excellent value of the provisioning services of Batticaloa, Negombo and Puttalam lagoons is presented in Samarakoon and Samarawickrama (2012), who state that the annual income from fisheries in these lagoons exceeds two billion rupees. A few years ago, the then Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy convened a workshop called ‘Ecosystem Services for Linking Biodiversity with Livelihoods’ under the aegis of their project on ‘Pricing the Biodiversity of the Island’ in order that environmental economists could share their studies and discuss a way forward for the project (MoENR and IUCN, unpublished). Green reporting guidelines have now been introduced to Sri Lanka (MoE, 2011). Despite these efforts, ecosystem valuation has yet to be mainstreamed. Such mainstreaming will ensure that ecosystems are considered part of infrastructure: just as a building will have a monetary value, so must an ecosystem (Emerton, 2006; Emerton, 2007). There is now available landscape scenario spatial modelling software — such as Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) — that model changes in ecosystem services based on predicted land use changes. This provides a series of scenarios from which the best trade-off can be obtained (Nelson et al., 2009). Lack of congruence between conservation knowledge and conservation practice When the Red List™ status (the threat status) is compared with the level of legal protection afforded to species, there is a great difference between the threat level and the protection provided for certain groups. In the 2012 Red List™ 44 species of freshwater fish were as Threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable) (MoE, 2012). Of these only 16 are afforded protection (36.4%) under the FPPO (2009) and 21 (47.7%) under the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act 1996 (specifically, the Export and Import of Live Fish Regulations, 1998). Of the latter, only 13 species are provided full protection and for the rest of the species (8) export is permitted for captive-bred individuals (Table 1). Alarmingly, of the 15 threatened species exported in the ornamental fish trade (CR=4, EN=8, VU=3), nine species (CR=2, EN=4, VU=3) are not protected by either law (Table 1). For six species that have been listed as threatened since 2000, in three iterations of Red Lists, the status of protection has not changed. (See grey highlighted rows in Table 1.) This lack of congruence between the conservation status and the legal status of freshwater fish was raised by Amarasinghe et al. in 2006. A decade later, nothing has changed. Another example of this lack of correspondence relates to the calculation of natural forest cover in Sri Lanka. An essential requirement in the assessment of biodiversity loss is the analyses of trends. One of the most serious threats to biodiversity in Sri Lanka is habitat destruction, including and perhaps primarily, of forests (BDS, MoERE, 2014; IUCN, 2011; Mattsson et al., 2012; Perera, 2001). Although a clear classification of vegetation types has been published in the National Atlas (Jayasingham et al. 2007) and previous authors (Ashton et al., 1997; Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke, 1981; Jayasuriya et al., 2006) have also provided detailed descriptions, there is doubt that these definitions are used in analyses of forest cover, leading to misleading computations. For example, Sri Lanka’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014, submitted by the then Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy presented figures that indicate an increase from 3,099.5 to 44,758 hectares in montane forests between 1999 and 2010, which is simply not possible, given the high human population density of the area. It is noted in the report that ‘the discrepancies between areas given for montane and sub-montane forests in the 1999 and 2010 forest assessments are reportedly due to differences in criteria for separation of these forest types’. This again simply reinforces the concern that science is not translated into practice. Complacency in Red Listing™ Even though Sri Lanka has been at the forefront of Red Listing™ in the Asian region, we have not progressed beyond this process. Although we have identified species that need urgent intervention, actual conservation actions related to these species have not kept pace with the generation of Red Lists. For example, we have not focussed sufficiently on research related to threatened species (see section below). Even when such research is identified, have we established an adequate source of funding for such research? For example, the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund provides grants for research specifically targeted for species survival. A similar national source of funding is urgently need. Once Threatened species are identified, we have not formulated recovery plans for their continued survival. Conservation Revisited 9 Table 1. Examination of the legal status of threatened freshwater fish (Sources: * MoE, 2012; **MoNRE,2007,+ IUCN, 1999; ++Gunasekera, 2011; ǂFFPO, 2009; ǂǂ FARA, 1996) Scientific name Common name Species status* Conservation status 2012* Conservatio n status 2007** Conservation status 2000+ Traded as an ornament al species ++ Protected by FFPO (No. 2 of 2009) SCHEDULE VI Schedule I and II Export prohibited/ restricted of live form 1 Acanthocobitis urophthalmus Sri Lanka Tiger Loach Endemic EN VU T Yes No No 2 Amblypharyngodon grandisquamis Sri Lanka Large Silver Carplet Endemic EN No No No 3 Aplocheilus dayi Sri Lanka Day's Killifish Endemic EN NT T Yes No No 4 Aplocheilus werneri Sri Lanka Werneri's Killifish Endemic EN VU T Yes No No 5 Belontia signata Sri Lanka Combtail Endemic NT NT T Yes No Export restricted (Schedule II) 6 Channa ara Sri Lanka Giant Snakehead Endemic EN VU T No No No 7 Channa orientalis Smooth-Breasted Snakehead Endemic VU NT T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 8 Dawkinsia srilankensis Sri Lanka Blotched Filamented Barb Endemic CR EN T (Puntius srilankensis) No Yes (Puntius srilankensis) Export prohibited Schedule I (Puntius srilankensis) 9 Devario aequipinnatus Sri Lanka Knuckles Danio Endemic CR HT (Danio aequipinnatus) Yes No No 10 Devario pathirana Sri Lanka Barred Danio Endemic CR CR HT (Danio pathirana) Yes Yes Export restricted (Schedule II) 11 Garra ceylonensis Sri Lanka Stone Sucker Endemic VU T Yes No No 12 Labeo fisheri Sri Lanka Mountain Labeo Endemic CR CR T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 13 Labeo lankae Sri Lanka Knuckles Laubuca Endemic CR CR HT No Yes (Labeo porcellus) Export prohibited Schedule I (Labeo porcellus) 1 0 M ith th ap ala C o n serv atio n R e v isited 9 10 Miththapala Scientific name Common name Species status* Conservation status 2012* Conservatio n status 2007** Conservation status 2000+ Traded as an ornament al species ++ Protected by FFPO (No. 2 of 2009) SCHEDULE VI Schedule I and II Export prohibited/ restricted of live form 14 Laubuca lankensis Sri Lanka Blue Laubuca Endemic VU No No No 15 Laubuca ruhuna Sri Lanka Ruhunu Laubuca Endemic EN No No No 16 Laubuca varuna Sri Lanka Varuna Laubuca Endemic CR No No No 17 Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi Sri Lanka Jonklaas's Loach Endemic CR EN T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 18 Macrognathus pentophthalmos Sri Lanka spiny eel Endemic CR (PE) CR HT (Macrognathus aral) Yes Yes (M. aral) Export restricted (Schedule II) (M. aral) 19 Malpulutta kretseri Sri Lanka Ornate Paradise Fish Endemic CR VU T No No Export prohibited Schedule I 20 Monopterus desilvai Sri Lanka Lesser Swamp Eel Endemic CR CR T No No No 21 Mystus ankutta Sri Lanka Dwarf Catfish Endemic EN No No No 22 Ophisternon bengalense Asian Swamp Eel Native CR CR T No Yes No 23 Pethia bandula Sri Lanka Bandula Barb Endemic CR CR HT (Puntius bandula) No Yes (Puntius 'handula') Export prohibited Schedule I (Puntius bandula) 24 Pethia cumingii Sri Lanka Cuming's Barb Endemic EN VU T (Puntius cumingii) Yes No Export restricted (Schedule II), red fin variety (Puntius cummingii) 25 Pethia melanomaculata Sri Lanka tic tac barb Endemic VU Yes No 26 Pethia nigrofasciata Sri Lanka Black Ruby barb Endemic EN VU T (Puntius nigrofasciatus) Yes No Export restricted Schedule II (Puntius nigrofasciatus) 27 Pethia reval Sri Lanka Redfined barb Endemic EN Yes No No 1 0 M ith th ap ala Conservation Revisited 11 Scientific name Common name Species status* Conservation status 2012* Conservatio n status 2007** Conservation status 2000+ Traded as an ornament al species ++ Protected by FFPO (No. 2 of 2009) SCHEDULE VI Schedule I and II Export prohibited/ restricted of live form 28 Puntius kamalika Sri Lanka Kamalica's barb Endemic EN No No No 29 Puntius kelumi Sri Lanka Redeye Endemic EN No No No 30 Puntius titteya Sri Lanka Cherry barb Endemic EN VU HT Yes No Export restricted Schedule II 31 Rasbora armitagei Sri Lanka Armitagi Rasbora Endemic CR No No No 32 Rasbora naggsi Sri Lanka Naggasi Rasbora Endemic CR No No No 33 Rasbora wilpita Sri Lanka Wilpita Rasbora Endemic EN EN T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 34 Rasboroides atukorali Horadandia Native VU NT T (Horadandia athukorale) Yes No No 35 Rasboroides nigromaginata Sri Lanka blackline Rasbora Endemic CR No No No 36 Rasboroides vaterifloris Sri Lanka Golden Rasbora Endemic EN EN T (Rasbora vaterifloris) Yes No Export restricted schedule II 37 Schismatogobius deraniyagalai Redneck Goby Native EN EN T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 38 Sicyopterus griseus Stone Goby Native CR EN T Yes No No 39 Sicyopterus halei Red-Tailed Goby Native CR EN T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 40 Sicyopus jonklaasi Sri Lanka Lipstick Goby Endemic EN VU T No Yes Export prohibited Schedule I 41 Stiphodon martenstyni Sri Lanka Martenstyn's Goby Endemic CR (PE ) CR HT No Yes NARA says prohibited but not in regulation 42 Systomus asoka Sri Lanka Asoka Barb Endemic CR CR HT (Puntius asoka) No Yes (Puntius asoka) Prohibited Export prohibited Schedule I (Puntius asoka) C o n serv atio n R e v isited 1 1 12 Miththapala Scientific name Common name Species status* Conservation status 2012* Conservatio n status 2007** Conservation status 2000+ Traded as an ornament al species ++ Protected by FFPO (No. 2 of 2009) SCHEDULE VI Schedule I and II Export prohibited/ restricted of live form 43 Systomus martenstyni Sri Lanka Martenstyn's Barb Endemic CR CR HT (Puntius martenstyni) No Yes (Puntius martenstyni) Export prohibited Schedule I (Puntius martenstyni) 44 Systomus pleurotaenia Sri Lanka Black-Lined Barb Endemic EN VU T (Puntius pleurotaenia) No No No 45 Wallago attu Shark Catfish Native EN VU No No No 46 Clarias brachysoma Sri Lanka Walking Catfish Endemic NT T Yes No Export of ‘live form’ prohibited (Schedule II) 1 2 M ith th ap ala Conservation Revisited 13 Inadequate prioritisation of conservation research Many global assessments have identified Sri Lanka’s southwestern quarter as an area where priority conservation actions must be taken: for example, Wikramanayake et al. (2001) ‘globally outstanding for biological distinctiveness’; Conservation International (2015) ‘biodiversity hotspot’; Carwardine et al. (2008) ‘irreplaceability’. The southwest is a large area with 3,7721 threatened plants (50.9% of which are endemics); and 926 vertebrates (72.5% of which are endemics) (MoE, 2012). There is a need then, for a fine-scale approach that will permit the selection of priority areas or threatened species. Wijesundara and Perera (2015) used weighted endemism (Crisp et al., 2001) to identify nine endemic areas for angiosperms (southwest wet zone, northern highlands, central highlands, eastern highlands, Yala, Doluwa, Ritigala, Wilpattu and Jaffna) and five core endemic areas (Sinharaja, Adam’s Peak, Knuckles, Horton Plains and Kandy) within the endemic zones. Significantly. Wijesundara’s research identifies areas outside the southwest quarter. Such research that can guide conservation actions in Sri Lanka is woefully inadequate. Other tools such as IUCN Ecosystem Red Listing (Keith et al., 2015); and Key Biodiversity Areas (Eken et al., 2004) are now available for fine-grained analyses. Because of the complexity of ecosystems, understanding interconnections and measuring changes in processes to examine ecosystem health takes up considerable time and expense. A simpler conceptual approach is to monitor a species/some species as proxies or surrogates (for example, indicator, umbrella, and flagship, phylogenetically unique species) for ecosystems or groups of species (inter alia, Caro and O'Doherty, 1999; Cushman et al., 2010). There are 1,754 Threatened plants (1,531 angiosperms) and 805 Threatened animals listed in the Red List (Threatened = Critically Endangered, Endangred and Vulnerable categories) (MoE, 2012). Of these, 446 plants and 327 animals are considered as Critically Endangered (MoE, 2012). This again begs the question, how can these species be prioritised for conservation action? Only a few studies have attempted to prioritise such species for conservation action. Balmford et al. (1996) used the richness of families and genera as a surrogate for species richness in 35 forest reserves in the wet zone. IUCN (2014) shortlisted Threatened species for translocation from the Mahaweli inundation areas of Moragahakanda and Kaluganga by using a set of criteria (whether endemic or native; threat status, geographical distribution, and use value — for plants) and using a scoring system. Ratnayeke and Manon (2012) used sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) presence as a surrogate for the conservation of other carnivores in Sri Lanka. Nekaris et al., (2015) used the Cinderella species concept2 and ecological niche modelling to show that the red slender loris (Loris tardigradus tardigradus) and the fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) were good surrogate species3. Similar studies are urgently needed. Inadequate predictive research Much of the current research carried out in Sri Lanka is descriptive (See http://cjsbs.sljol.info/ issue/archive/). In the last few decades, the taxonomic and phylogenetic studies of species that inventorised the island’s biodiversity have been exceptional, documenting new species, as well as endemic species (inter alia, Bahir and Ng, 2005; Batuwita and Bahir, 2005; Bedjanič et al., 2014; Benjamin et al., 2012; Dias, 2006; Karunaratne et al., 2005; Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda, 2005; Meegaskumbura, and Manamendra-Arachchi, 2011; Meegaskumbura et al., 2002; Meegaskumbura et al., 2007; Meegaskumbura et al., 2014; Naggs et al., 2005; Pethiyagoda et al., 2012; Ranil and Pushpakumar, 2012; van der Poorten and van der Poorten, 2012; van der Poorten and van der Poorten, 2012a; Warakagoda and Rasmussen, 2004; Weerakoon and Aptroot, 2014; Wickramasinghe and Munindradasa, 2007). However, fewer studies have striven to study in detail the ecology of these newly identified species, examine their niche needs and provide conservation guidance. Tools such as niche modelling and habitat suitability modelling use habitat environmental variables of the area where a species is known to occur, in order to predict where it could be found (Giriraj et al., 2008; Hirzel and Le Lay, 2008; Kumara and Suganthasakthivel, 2011; Lyet et al., 2013; Nekaris and Stengal, 2013; Thriveni et al., 2015; Wikramanayake et al., 1999). Nekaris and Stengal (2013) conclude from their study, that the status of Loris tardigradus tardigradus should be changed from Endangered to Critically Endangered. Since 2008, only two articles of the Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio.Sci.) have used predictive modelling4. ______________________________________________________ 1The numbers presented are aggregates for lower and higher plants for each wet zone district and not calculated by climate zone. 2A Cinderella species is an aesthetically pleasing but overlooked species that fulfils the criteria of flagship or umbrella species. 3The elephant, of course, is often referred to as an umbrella, flagship and keystone species IChoudhury et al., 2008) but the conservation practices used to manage this large herbivore have been largely unsuccessful with Fernando calling for a paradigm change in elephant conservation (Fernando, 2015b). 4One, by Fakruddin et al. (2011) modelled microbial responses in food; the other by Nagabhatla et al (2008) used geospatial tools to monitor change in Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon. 14 Miththapala Lack of research on the impact of climate change on species and ecosystems Climate change is an over-arching driver of biodiversity loss that is predicted to be the dominant driver of loss by the end of this century (MEA, 2005). Much of climate change research in Sri Lanka has focussed on a) predicting the climatic changes in Sri Lanka (Basanyake, 2007; de Costa, 2008; Jayawardene et al., 2015; Zubair and Ropelewski, 2006; Zubair et al., 2007); b) examining the impacts of climate change on natural hazards (Zubair et al., 2006b); and c) predicting impacts of climate change on agriculture and the adaptive strategies needed for the sector and for food security (inter alia, Athulathmudali et al., 2011; De Costa, 2000; Eriagama et al., 2010; Esham and Garforth, 2013; Fernando, 2000; Panabokke and Punyawardena, 2010; Peiris et al., 2008; Wijeratne,2007; Zubair, 2002). Very little attention has been paid to the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. A sector vulnerability profile for biodiversity and ecosystem services carried out by the Climate Change Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2011) predicts that there will be a possible shift in climatic zones, with the dry zone expanding into the intermediate zone, and the latter, into the wet zone. Through the preparation of a series of maps, a composite map of the distribution of threatened species of amphibians, dipterocarps and orchids and district- wise vulnerability reveals that the biodiversity in the districts of Colombo, Galle, Kalutara, Matale, Nuwara Eliya and Ratnapura will be significantly affected (MoNRE, 2011). It is in the montane zone that climate change impacts are already being felt: night time annual mean minimum air temperatures have increased maximally in Nuwara Eliya (Basanyake, 2007). In addition, the highest rate of decline in rainfall has been shown to be in Nuwara Eliya (Costa, 2008). In 1992, mass deaths of the pygmy lizard (Cophotis ceylanica) were observed in Nuwara Eliya and Hakkgala and these deaths were attributed to drought and high temperatures in the region (de Silva, 2006). In Sri Lanka, there are 59 extant species of the Genus Pseudophilautus — oriental tree shrub frogs, found in the wet zone that lay their eggs not in water but in moist places (Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi, 2011; Wickramasinghe et al., 2015). These are species that could be similarly adversely affected. Half the plant species of the montane zone are found nowhere else in the world (Wijesundara, 2012). Among native orchids — a group of plants known to be vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Barman and Devadas, 2013; Swarts and Dixon, 2009) — 41.5% are found only in the sub- montane and montane zone (Fernando and Ormerod, 2008). Of these, 38.5% are endemics (Fernando and Ormerod, 2008). A Google and Google Scholar search of impact+climate change+species+Sri Lanka or climate change+ecosystems+Sri Lanka returns only Somaratne and Dhanapala’s (2008) study on impacts of forest distribution and a taxonomic and ecological study of a threatened genus of Bufonid Adenomus, that concludes that the overlap of two species is the consequence of a low-latitude species moving into the range of a high-altitude species, with warming temperatures (Meegaskumbura et al., 2015). Since issue 2 of 2007, only one research article in the Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio Science) dealt with climate change — the lead article in issue 2 of 2014, relating to climate change and invasive alien species (Iqbal et al., 2014). The impact of climate change on invasive alien species has also not been investigated, despite the enormous ecological and economical threat from invasive alien species (Jayarathne and Ranwala, 2010; Iqbal et al., 2014). Another lacuna in relation to climate change is the absence of long-term monitoring plots in different climatic zones and ecosystems. Long-term monitoring (since 1993) has been carried out in 25 ha plot in the Sinharaja World Heritage Site to understand forest dynamics (Gunatilleke et al., 2004). Similar plots must be established, as noted above, and monitored specifically in relation to climate change. Focus is on a sectoral rather than a holistic approach The definition of conservation used in this paper inherently warrants a holistic approach that involves players from different disciplines. However, much of practised conservation in Sri Lanka is sectoral, administered by organisations mandated to conserve Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. The problems of a sectoral approach, which drives most conservation in Sri Lanka, is exemplified in the coastal sector. The Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department is the principal authority for the coastal areas of Sri Lanka (CCA, 1981; 1988). However, within the coastal zone are several coastal and marine protected areas — such as Wilpattu National Park and Bar Reef Sanctuary on the northwestern coast — which come under the purview of the Department of Wildlife Conservation. Also within the coastal zone are 15,669 ha of mangroves (BDS, MoERE, 2014), which are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department (IUCN, 2012; Joseph, 2003). In addition, there are some 13 fisheries management areas (areas protected for fisheries), which in turn, Conservation Revisited 15 are administered by the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (FARA, 1996). Any structural changes — such as hard engineering solutions needed for the prevention of erosion — are the responsibilities of engineers (BOBLME, 2013). Adding to this mix are provincial and local governments and two existing parallel structures — one political, i.e., elected (chief ministers, urban/municipal/local councils) and the other bureaucratic, i.e., appointed (district secretaries, divisional secretaries and grama niladharis) (IUCN, 2011b). Tourism, as a sector, is a heavy user of biodiversity: in 2014, 1,252,699 tourists (both local and foreign) visited 18 national parks and one sanctuary and generated a revenue of nearly 8.75 million rupees (SLTDA, 2014). Yet, this sector, barring piecemeal efforts by some large hotels, is rarely called upon to engage in conservation. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Shift to a new paradigm of conservation that includes preservation, enhancement, restoration and active management of ecosystems and species that is based on sound science. This will require concerted capacity building and a complete attitudinal shift of the mandated custodians of the island’s biodiversity. 2. There is an urgent need to shift to a landscape approach to conservation that includes connectivity between fragments or pockets of habitats, examines the impacts of upstream/upcountry activities on downstream/coastal systems and includes people as a part of this landscape. There are now many types of landscape modelling software (see section on valuation for an example) that can be applied to support such an approach. 3. Ensure that ecosystem valuation (which accounts for ecosystem services) is mainstreamed into conservation activities, national biodiversity action plans and other plans such as national adaptation plans and, that these feed into development plans and activities. 4. Ensure that current legislation accurately reflects the results the current Red Listing™ process, and ensure that conservation science is translated into conservation practice. 5. Methods for prioritising ecosystems and species must be developed and applied, so that conservation actions may be better focussed. 6. Parallel to the description and taxonomic research that is ongoing in the country, it is critically important that predictive research is increased and strengthened to complement these descriptive studies, to better inform conservation plans. 7. Increase targeted research on the impacts of climate change. Such research combined with recommendation 6 will provide information for proactive, a priori conservation, rather than reactive, a posteriori conservation. 8. Strengthen ex-situ conservation (as also recommended in BDS, MoERE, 2014) to complement efforts in recommendations 6 and 7. 9. Although it will be a considerable challenge, a shift to a multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder approach — such as an ecosystem approach (Figure 3) — is urgently needed. Several piecemeal efforts have been made towards multi-stakeholder involvement — such as efforts at integrated coastal zone management and multi-stakeholder platforms (CCD, 2004; IUCN, 2011b). However, such approaches must be mainstreamed. As Kawanishi and Seidensticker (2010) note, what is needed is ‘collaboration not competition’. 10. Because ecosystems are dynamic, conservation must be adaptive. Every management plan, or action plan must be continually updated. This occurs at a national level (for example, biodiversity action plans, Red Lists™), but whether there is adequate adaptive management as a matter of course is questionable. 11. Because conservation is often a crisis discipline (see Introduction), when data are not available, conservation biologists must rely on the precautionary principle, using the more conservative recommendation in order to take preventive action (Kriebel, 2001). 16 Miththapala Figure 3. Shifting to a mutil-sectoral approach (Source: Miththapala, 2001; adapted from Nature Conservancy 2005) Concluding Remarks Many of the gaps that I have noted above have been repeatedly identified in various national plans (MoENR, 2007, CCS, MoENR, 2010, 2011; BDS, MoERE, 2014). What I have discussed is not new. My attempt in this paper was to revert to the very basics of conservation biology and to remind us afresh of what conservation really is. Unless we transform our thinking and move conservation in Sri Lanka into the 21st century, making informed predictions about change and being proactive with our actions; guiding and being guided by conservation needs, we will indubitably fail in our efforts, because, currently we are not engaging in conservation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Dr. John Seidensticker, of the Smithsonian Institute, for initial discussions on this topic; Prof. Devaka Weerakoon, Dr. Siril Wijesundara and Dr. Janaki Galappatti for reviewing the manuscript; Mr Sampath de Alwis Goonatilake for assistance related to Threatened species; Ms. Indika Arulingam for assistance with the table on the legal status of fish species; and Ms. Dilhari Weragodatenna for the map. REFERENCES Abeywickrama, B. A. (1987). The Threatened Plants of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka. Publication 13. ADB (2010). Sri Lanka: Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ project-document/62313/31381-01-sri-pcr.pdf Retrieved Oct 7th 2015. Amarasinghe, U. S., Shirantha, R. R. A. R. and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne (2006). Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka. Pp 113-124 in (ed.) Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Conservation Revisited 17 Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. Colombo: The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. viii + 308pp. Ashton, M. A., Gunatilleke, S., de Zoysa, N., Dassanayake, M. D., Gunatilleke, N. and S. Wijesundara (1997). A field guide to the common trees and shrubs of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Wildlife Heritage Trust Publications. 432 pp. Athulathmudali, S., Balasuriya, A. and K. Fernando (2011). An Exploratory Study on Adapting to Climate Change in Coastal Areas of Sri Lanka. Working Paper no 02/2011 NTNU Globalization Research Programme. Trondheim: NTNU Globalization Research Programme. 46 pp. Audubon Society (2015). Mission. http://www. audubon.org/ Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Bahir, M. M. and P. K. L. Ng (2005). Description of ten new species of freshwater crabs (Parathelphusidae: Ceylonthelphusa, Mahatha, Perbrinckia) from Sri Lanka. Pp 47–75 in (eds.) Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng and R. Pethiyagoda, Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12. Bandara, J. S., Chisholm, A., Ekanayake, A., Jayasuriya, S (2001). Environmental cost of soil erosion in Sri Lanka: tax/subsidy policy options. Environmental Modelling and Software 16:497-508. Bandara, R. and C. Tisdell (2005). The History and Value of the Elephant in Sri Lankan Society. Working Paper No. 133, Economics, Ecology and the Environment. 25 pp. Barman, D. and R. Devadas (2013). Climate change on orchid population and conservation strategies: A review. Journal of Crop and Weed 9(2):1-12. Basanyake, B. R. S. B (2007). Climate change. Pp 54-55 in The National Atlas of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Government Press. 170 pp. Batuwita, S. and M. M. Bahir (2005). Description of Five New Species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 2005 Supplement No. 12: 351–380. Bedjanič, M., Conniff, K., vander Poorten, N. and A. Šalumun (2014). Dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka: distribution and biology, with threat status of endemics. Sofia: Pensoft. 321 pp. Benjamin, S. P., Nanayakkara, R. P. and S. K. Dayananda (2012). The Taxonomy and Conservation Status of the Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) in Sri Lanka. Pp 42-57 in (eds.) Weerakoon, D. and D. S. Wijesundara, The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Colombo: Ministry of Environment. Biodiversity Secretariat, Ministry of Environment & Renewable Energy (BDS, MoERE) (2014). Sri Lanka’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014. Colombo: Biodiversity Secretariat, Ministry of Environment & Renewable Energy. xxi+128 pp. BOBLME (2014). Assessing, demonstrating and capturing the economic value of marine and coastal ecosystem services in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem BOBLME-2014- Socioec-02. 86 pp. BOBLME (2013) Country report on pollution — Sri Lanka BOBLME-2011-Ecology-14. ix+96 pp. Balmford, A., Jayasuriya, A. H. M. and M. J. B. Green (1996). Using Higher-Taxon Richness as a Surrogate for Species Richness: II. Local Applications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 263:1571-1575; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0230. Published 22 November 1996. Buck, L. E., Milder, J. C., Gavin, T. A. and I. Mukherjee (2006). Understanding ecoagriculture: a framework for measuring landscape performance. http://www. ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_25.pdf Accessed Jan 4th 2014. Caro, T. M. and C. O’Doherty (1999). On the use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 13(4): 805-814. Carwardine, J., Wilson, K. A., Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. E., Naidoo, R., Iwamura, T., Hajkowicz, S. A. and H. P. Possingham (2008). Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 105 (32): 11446–11450. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707157105. CBD (2015). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ Retrieved Nov 15th 2015. CBD (2008). Biodiversity Glossary. https://www.cbd.int/cepa/toolkit/2008/doc/CB D-Toolkit-Glossaries.pdf Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. CBD (1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd- en.pdf Retrieved Oct 6th 2015. Choudhury, A., Lahiri Choudhury, D.K., Desai, A., Duckworth, J.W., Easa, P.S., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Fernando, P., Hedges, S., Gunawardena, M., Kurt, F., Karanth, U., Lister, A., Menon, V., Riddle, H., Rübel, A. & Wikramanayake, E. (IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group) (2008). Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T7140A12828813. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T7140A12828813. Climate Change Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (CCS, MoENR) (2011). Sector Vulnerability Profile: 18 Miththapala Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Strengthening Capacity for Climate Change Adaptation. ADB TA 7326 (SRI) Sector. 90 pp. http://www.climatechange.lk/adaptation/Files/ Biodiversity_SVP_Nov-16-2010.pdf Retrieved August 25th 2014. Climate Change Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (CCS, MoENR, 2010). National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Sri Lanka 2011 to 2016. Battaramulla. Climate Change Secretariat, Ministry of Environment. 75 pp. http://www.climatechange.lk/adaptation/Files/ Strategy_Booklet-Final_for_Print_Low_res(1). pdf Retrieved Aug 25th 2014. Coast Conservation Act (Amendment) (1988). Coast Conservation Act (Amendment) No. 64 of 1988. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/ view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=A2 00AB087F19941D4A434364F26FC9F7?id=L EX-FAOC011456&index=documents Retrieved Nov 16th 2015. Coast Conservation Act (1981). Coast Conservation Act No. 57 of 1981. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/Reco rdDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=A200AB087F 19941D4A434364F26FC9F7?id=LEX- FAOC005289&index=documents Retrieved Nov 16th 2015. Conservation International (2015). Mission. http://www.conservation.org/about/Pages/defa ult.aspx#mission Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Conservation International (2015). Western Ghats and Sri Lanka http://www.cepf.net/resources/. hotspots/Asia-Pacific/Pages/Western-Ghats- and-Sri-Lanka.aspx Retrieved Nov 15th 2015. Crisp, M. D., Laffan, S., Linder, H. P and A. Monro (2001). Endemism in the Australian Flora Journal of Biogeography 28: 183-198. Cushman, S. A., Mckelvey, K. A., Noon, B. R. and K.Mcgarigal (2010). Use of Abundance of One Species as a Surrogate for Abundance of Others. Conservation Biology 24 (3): 830–840. Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Hettiarachchi, S., Lo Seen, D., Batelaan,O., Sooriyarachchi, S., Jayatissa,L. P and N. Koedam (2005). Transitions in Ancient Inland Freshwater Resource Management in Sri Lanka Affect Biota and Human Populations in and around Coastal Lagoons. Current Biology 15: 579– 586, DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.053. de Costa, W.A.J.M (2008). Climate change in Sri Lanka: myth or reality? Evidence from long- term meteorological data. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka 36 Special Issue: 63-88. de Silva (2006). Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka. Pp 134-163 in (ed.) Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. Colombo: The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. viii + 308pp. Department of Wildlife Conservation (2015). National Parks. http://www.dwc.gov.lk/index. php/en/national-parks. Retrieved Nov 12th 2015. Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) (2015). Personal communication. Department of Wildlife Conservation (2012). Performance report 2012 Department of Wildlife Conservation. Battaramulla: DWC. 70 pp.http://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documen ts/paperspresented/performance_report_depart ment_of_wildlife_conservation_2012.pdf Retrieved Oct 7th 2015. Dharmasena, P. and M.S. Bhat (2011). Assessment of Replacement Cost of Soil Erosion in Uva High Lands Tea Plantations of Sri Lanka. Current World Environment 6(2): 241-246. Dias, R. K. S., (2006). Current taxonomic status of ants of Sri Lanka. Pp 43-52 in (ed.) Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. The fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of taxonomy, research and conservation. Colombo: The World Conservation Union (IUCN) of Sri Lanka and the Government of Sri Lanka. Dictionary.com (2015). Definition of conservation. http://dictionary.reference.com/ browse/conservation Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Earthwatch Institute (2015). Vision. http://earthwatch.org/about Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Ehrlich, P. R. and H. A. Mooney (1983). Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services BioScience 33 (4): 248-254. Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., Knox, D., Langhammer, P., Matiku, P., Radford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M. L., Spector, S., and A. Tordoff (2004). Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets. BioScience 54(12): 1110-1118. Emerton, L (2007). Counting Coastal Ecosystems as an Economic Part of Development Infrastructure. Colombo: Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia, World Conservation Union (IUCN). 11 pp. Emerton, L (2006). Valuing Asia’s Coastal Ecosystems as Economic Infrastructure. MIMA Bulletin 14(1), Maritime Institute of Malaysia. Emerton, L., and B. Kekulandala (2002). Assessment of the Economic Value of Muthurajawela Wetland. Colombo: IUCN — The World Conservation Union, Sri Lanka Country Office and Regional Environmental Economics Programme. Erickson, J. D (2000). Endangering the economics of extinction. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):34–41. Eriyagama, N., Smakhtin, V., Chandrapala, L. and K. Fernando(2010). Impacts of climate change Conservation Revisited 19 on water resources and agriculture in Sri Lanka: a review and preliminary vulnerability mapping. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 51p. (IWMI Research Report 135). doi:10.5337/2010.211. Esham, M. and C. Garforth (2013). Climate change and agricultural adaptation in Sri Lanka: a review. Climate and Development 5 (1). pp. 66- 76. ISSN 1756-5537 doi:10.1080/ 17565529.2012.762333. Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Export and Import of Live Fish Regulations (1998). Export and Import of Live Fish Regulations of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/ view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=89B FEC5390A0A0BDDE29929207AF78A8?id=L EX-FAOC019672&index=documents. Retrieved August 21st 2014. Fakruddin, M., Mazumdar, R and K. Mannan (2011). Predictive microbiology: Modeling microbial responses in food. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Science) 40(2): 121-131. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v40i2.3928. Retrieved Dec 2015. Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (FFPO) (2009). An Ordinance to provide for the protection of the Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka –amendment http://faolex.fao.org/ cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=018111&database=FA OLEX&search_type=link&table =result&lang=eng&format_name=@ERALL Retrieved July 5th 2011. Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (FFPO) (1937). An ordinance to provide for the protection of the fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. No. 2 of 1937. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ srl22041.pdf Retrieved Oct 7th 2015. Retrieved August 21st 2014. Fernando, P (2015a). The Starving Elephants Of Udawalawe. http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/ magazines/conservation/9933-the-starving- elephants-of-udawalawe.html Retrieved Oct 7th 2015. Fernando, P (2015b). Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka: Where We Are and Where We Need to Be. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 44 (1): 1-11, 2015.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/ cjsbs.v44i1.7336. Retrieved Dec 15th 2015. Fernando, P., Wikramanayake, E. D., Janaka, H. K., Jayasinghe, L.K.A., Gunawardena, M., Kotagama, S. W., Weerakoon, D and J. Pastorini (2008). Ranging behavior of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka. Mammalian Biology 73 (1): 2–13. Fernando, S. S. and P.Ormerod (2008). An Annotated Checklist of the Orchids of Sri Lanka. Rheedea 18(1):1-28. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act (FARA) (1996). Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ ledge/view/RecordDetails; DPFDSIjsessionid= 89BFEC5390A0A0BDDE9929207AF78A8?id =LEX-FAOC004092&index=documents. Retrieved August 21st 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization (2015). http://www.fao.org/nr/cgrfa/cgrfa-vision/en/ Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Forest Department (2015). Village reforestation programme. http://www.forestdept.gov.lk/web/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=128&Itemid=137&lang=en Retrieved Oct 7th 2014. Forest Ordinance (1907). An Ordinance to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to Forests and the Felling and Transport of Timber. No. 16 of 1907. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/Reco rdDetails;DIDPFDSI?id=LEX-FAOC003371 &index=documents Retrieved August 21st 2014. Free Dictionary (2015. http://www.thefree dictionary.com/conservation Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Giriraj, A., Irfan-Ullah, M., Ramesh, Karunakaran, B. R.,P. V., Jentsch, Anke and M. S. R. Murthy (2008). Mapping the potential distribution of Rhododendron arboreum Sm. ssp. nilagiricum (Zenker) Tagg (Ericaceae), an endemic plant using ecological niche modelling. Current Science 94(12):1605-1612. Go´mez-Baggethun, E. and M.R. Pe´rez (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/0309133311421708. Gunasekera, R. S (2011) Export trade of indigenous freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. Singapore: by author. iv+126 pp. Gunatilleke, C. V. S., Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., Ashton, P. S., Ethulaga, A. U. K., Weersekara, N. S. and S. Esufali (2004). Sinharaja Forest Dynamics Plot, Sri Lanka. Pp 599-608 in (eds) E. C. Losos, Leigh, J. and G. Egbert. Forest Diversity and Dynamism: Findings from large- scale plot network. Chicago University Press, Chicago. 688 pp. Gunawardena, U. A. D. P (2010). Environmental Taxation Economic Review Oct/ Nov. 2010: 21- 38. Hanski, I (1999). Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and meta populations in dynamic landscapes OIKOS 87: 209-219. Herath, G (2001). Estimating the User Cost of Soil Erosion in Tea Smallholdings in Sri Lanka. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 7(1):97-111. Hirzel, A. H. and G. Le Lay (2008). Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1372–1381 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01524. 20 Miththapala http://cjsbs.sljol.info/issue/ archive/Retrieved Nov 1st 2015. Iqbal, M.C.M., Wijesundera, D.S. and S. M. W. Ranwala (2014). Climate Change, Invasive Alien Flora and Concerns for their Management in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 43 (2): 1-15, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4038/cjsbs.v43i2.7321. IUCN (2015). Definitions. https://cmsdata.iucn. org/downloads/en_iucn__glossary_definitions. pdf Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. IUCN (2015). Ridge to reef. https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/ water/wp_our_work/wp_our_work_ridgetoree/ Retrieved Oct 21st 2015. IUCN (2015). Vision. http://www.iucn.org/about/ Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. IUCN (2014). Final report of ‘Implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan of the Moragahakanda Agricultural Development Project and the Kalu Ganga Reservoir and Agricultural Extension Project’ to the Mahaweli Development Authority. Unpublished report. 272+1434 pp. IUCN (2011a). An Environmental and Fisheries Profile of the Puttalam Lagoon System. Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for South and Southeast Asia (GCP/RAS/237/SPA) Field Project Document 2011/LKA/CM/05. xvii+237 pp. IUCN (2011b). Improving Natural Resource Governance for the rural poor in Sri Lanka’: lessons learned. Unpublished report. 43 pp. IUCN (2000). The 1999 list of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN Sri Lanka. viii + 114pp. IUCN/UNEP (1980). The World Conservation Strategy. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/ documents/WCS-004.pdf. Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Jayarathne, B. and S. Ranwala (2010). Research on invasive alien plants in Sri Lanka: An analysis of past work. Pp 179-184 in Invasive Alien Species in Sri Lanka — Strengthening Capacity to Control Their Introduction and Spread (eds. Marambe, B., Silva, P., Wijesundara, S. and N. Atapattu). Battaramulla: Biodiversity Secretariat, Ministry of Environment, Sri Lanka. Jayasingham, T, Wijesundara, S and M. Jayusuriya (2007). Natural vegetation. Pp 72-75 in The National Atlas of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Government Press. 170 pp. Jayasuriya, A. H. M., Kitchener, D. and Biradar, C. M. (2006). Portfolio of strategic conservation sites/ protected area Gap Analysis in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and EML Consultants. 340pp. Jayawardene, H.K.W.I., Jayewardene, D.R. and D.U.J. Sonnadara (2015). Interannual variability of precipitation in Sri Lanka. Journal of the National Science Foundation Sri Lanka 43 (1): 75-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v43i1.7917 Joseph, L. (2003). National Report of Sri Lanka. Unpublished report prepared for the BOBLME Programme. Unedited version at www.BOBLME.org. Kallesöe, M. F., Bambaradeniya, C. N. B., Iftikhar, U. A., Ranasinghe, T., and S. Miththapala (2008). Linking Coastal Ecosystems: and Human Well-Being: Learning From Conceptual Frameworks and Empirical Results. Colombo: Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, Asia, IUCN. viii+49 pp. Karunaratne, W. A. I. P., Edirisinghe, J. P. and A. Pauly (2005). An updated checklist of bees of Sri Lanka with new records. MAB Checklist and Handbook Series. Publication No. 23. Colombo: National Science Foundation. Keith, D. A., Rodriguez, J. P., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M. A., Barrow, E. G., Bland, L., Comer, P. J., Franklin, J., Link, J ., McCarthy, M. A., Miller, R. M., Murray, N. J., Nel, J., Nicholson, Oliveira-Miranda, M. A., Regan, T. J., Rodriıguez-Clark, K. M., Rouget, M. and M. D. Spalding (2015). The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Motivations, Challenges, and Applications. Conservation Letters 8(3): 214– 226. doi: 10.1111/conl.12167. Kittle, A. M., Watson, A. C, Chanaka Kumara, P.H.S., Sandanayake, S.D. K. C, Sanjeewani, . H. K. N & T. S. P. Fernando (2014). Notes on the diet and habitat selection of the Sri Lankan Leopard Panthera pardus kotiya (Mammalia: Felidae) in the central highlands of Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(9): 6214–622. Kumara, H. N. and R. Suganthasakthivel (2011). Predicting the potential distribution and conservation needs of Travancore flying squirrel, Petinomys fuscocapillus, in Peninsular India and Sri Lanka, using GARP. Tropical Conservation Science 4 (2):172-186. Levins, R (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237- 240. Ludwig, D (2001). The Era of Management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764 DOI: 10.1007/s10021- 001-0044-x. Lyet, A., Thuiller, W., Cheylan, M. and A. Besnard (2013). Fine-scale regional distribution modelling of rare and threatened species: bridging GIS Tools and conservation in practice. Diversity and Distributions 19: 651– 663. Manamendra-Arachchi, K. and R. Pethiyagoda (2005). The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 163–303. Conservation Revisited 21 Mattsson, E., Persson, U. M., Ostwald, M. and S.P. Nissanka (2012). REDD+ readiness implications for Sri Lanka in terms of reducing deforestation. Journal of Environmental Management 100: 29-40. McCauley, D. J (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature 443 (7): 27-28. Meegaskumbura, M. and K.Manamendra-Arachchi (2011). Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae: Pseudophilautus) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa 2747:1–18. Meegaskumbura, M. and K. Manamendra- Arachchi (2005). Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 305–338. Meegaskumbura, M., Bossuyt, F., Pethiyagoda, R., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Bahir, M., Milinkovitch, M. C. and C. J. Schneider (2002) Sri Lanka: An Amphibian Hot Spot. Science: 298(11):379. Meegaskumbura, M., Senevirathne, G., Wijayathilaka, N., Jayawardena, B., Bandara, C., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. and R. Pethiyagoda (2015). The Sri Lankan torrent toads (Bufonidae: Adenominae: Adenomus): species boundaries assessed using multiple criteria. Zootaxa 3911 (2): 245–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3911.2.6 Meegaskumbura, S., Meegaskumbura, M., and C. J. Schneider (2014). Phylogenetic Relationships of the Endemic Sri Lankan Shrew Genera: Solisorex and Feroculus. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 43 (2): 65-71, 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v43i2.7325. Meegaskumbura, S., Meegaskumbura, M., Pethiyagoda, R., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & Schneider, C. J., (2007). Crocidura hikmiya, a new shrew (Mammalia: Soricomorpha: Soricidae) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa 1665:19– 30. Meegaskumbura, S., Meegaskumbura, M., Pethiyagoda, R., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. and Schneider, C. J., (2007). Crocidura hikmiya, a new shrew (Mammalia: Soricomorpha: Soricidae) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa 1665:19–30. Meffe, G. K., Carroll, C. R and others (1997). Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 1-729 pp. Merriam Webster Dictionary (2015). Definition of conservation. http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/conservation Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Well-being Synthesis report. Washington DC: Island Press. v+86 pp. Ministry of Environment (MoE) (2012). The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Weerakoon, D.K. & S. Wijesundara Eds. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ministry of Environment. viii + 476pp. Ministry of Environment (2011). National Green Reporting System of Sri Lanka Reporting Guidelines. Battaramulla: Ministry of Environment. 64 pp. http://www. environmentmin.gov.lk/web/images/pdf/green _report.pdf Retrieved Nov 6th 2015. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoNRE) (2008). Handbook on MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements). http://www.environmentmin.gov.lk/web/image s/pdf/hand_book_mea.pdf Retrieved Sept 3rd 2015. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoNRE) (2007). Biodiversity Conservation In Sri Lanka A Framework for Action – Addendum. Battaramulla: Biodiversity Secretariat Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. 67 pp. Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy and IUCN (2013). Services for Linking Biodiversity with Livelihoods, conference report. First National Conference on Livelihoods, Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services. 26 – 27, September 2013, Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, Colombo 7. Unpublished report. Ministry of Forestry and Environment (MoFE) (1999). Biodiversity conservation in Sri Lanka a framework for action. Colombo: Ministry of Forestry and Environment. 135 pp. Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment (MoMDE) (2015). An Initiation Workshop on National Red Listing. http://www.environmentmin.gov.lk/web/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9 73%3Aan-initiation-workshop-on-national- red-listing-&catid=1%3Alatest- news&lang=en&Itemid=334. Retrieved October 5th 2015. Miththapala. S. (2011). Guidelines for Community- based Nature Tourism in Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN and CARE. vii + 72 pp. Nagabhatla, N., Finlayson, C. M., Sellamuttu, S and A Gunawardena (2008). Application of Geospatial Tools to Monitor Change in a Micro-Tidal Estuary for the Purpose of Management Planning. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 37 (1): 73-86 DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v37i1.497 Retrieved Dec 2015. Naggs, F., Raheem, D., Ranawana, K., Mapatuna, Y (2005). The Darwin Initiative Project on Sri Lankan Land Snails: Patterns of Diversity in Sri Lankan Forests. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 2005 Supplement 12: 23–29. Nature Conservancy (2015). Vision. http://www. nature.org/about-us/vision-mission/about- http://www.environmentmin.gov.lk/web/images/pdf/hand_book_mea.pdf http://www.environmentmin.gov.lk/web/images/pdf/hand_book_mea.pdf 22 Miththapala vision-mission-main.xml Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Nature Conservancy (2005). An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning. Arlington, Virginia, USA. Nature Conservancy. http://www. nabuur.com/files/attach/2008/07/task/11288_4 7f9f214db0c2.pdf Retrieved Dec 15th 2015. Nekaris, K. A., Arnell, A. P. and M. S. Svensson (2015). Selecting a Conservation Surrogate Species for Small Fragmented Habitats Using Ecological Niche Modelling. Animals 5: 27-40; doi:10.3390/ani5010027. Nekaris, K. A. I and C. J. Stengel (2013). Where Are They? Quantification, Distribution and Microhabitat Use of Fragments by the Red Slender Loris (Loris tardigradus tardigradus) in Sri Lanka. Pp 371—384 in (ed.) L.K. Marsh and C.A. Chapman, Primates in Fragments: Complexity and Resilience, Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-8839-2_24. Nelson, E. Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M, Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H. and M. R. Shaw (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 4–11, doi:10.1890/080023. Oxford English Dictionary (2015). Definition of conservation. http://www.oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/english/conservation Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Panabokke, C. R. and Punyawardena, B. V. R. (2010), Climate change and rain-fed agriculture in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. Pp 141-146 in (ed.) Evans, A. and K. Jinapala, National Conference on Water, Food Security and Climate Change in Sri Lanka BMICH Colombo 9-11 June 2009. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Pearce, D., Hecht, S. and F. Vorhies (2007). What is biodiversity worth? Economics as a problem and a solution. Pp 35-45 in Key topics in (eds.) Macdonald, D.W.; and K. M Topics in Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell. 307 pp. Perera, G.A.D. (2001). The secondary forest situation in Sri Lanka: a review. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 13: 768–785. Peiris, T. S. G., Hansen, J. W. and L. Zubair (2008). Use of seasonal climate information to predict coconut production in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Climatology 28: 103–110. DOI: 10.1002/joc.1517. Pethiyagoda, R (2012). Biodiversity conservation in Sri Lanka’s novel ecosystems. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 41 (1): 1-10. Pethiyagoda, R., Meegaskumbura, M. and K. Maduwage (2012). A synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters. 23 (1): 69-95. Piyadasa, H.T.N.I. and S. Thiruchelvam (2005). An Estimation of the Recreational Value of ‘Bopath-Ella’ in Ratnapura: A Travel Cost Approach. Tropical Agricultural Research 17: 62 – 172. Ranasinghe, T., and M. Kallesoe (2006). Valuation, Rehabilitation and Conservation of Mangroves in Tsunami Affected Areas of Hambantota, Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN—The World Conservation Union. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/valuation__ rehabilitation_and_conservation.pdf, retrieved January 2008. Ranil, R.H.G. and D.K.N.G. Pushpakumara (2012). Taxonomy and Conservation Status of Pteridophyte Flora of Sri Lanka Pp 148-164 in: The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Weerakoon, D.K. & S. Wijesundara Eds., Ministry of Environment, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Rathnayake, R. M. W (2015). Estimating Demand for Turtle Conservation at the Rekawa Sanctuary in Sri Lanka. Working Paper No. 92– 15, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE). Rathnayake, R. M. W. and U. A. D. P. Gunawardena (2011). Estimation of Recreational Value of Horton Plains National Park in Sri Lanka: A Decision Making Strategy for Natural Resources Management. Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment 1(1): 71- 86. Ratnayeke, S. and F. T. van Manen (2012). Assessing sloth bears as surrogates for carnivore conservation in Sri Lanka. Ursus 23(2):206–217. Redford, K. H. and B. D. Richter (1999). Conservation of Biodiversity in a World of Use Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1246-1256. Rittel, H. W. J and M. M. Webber (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-169. Rodrigo, Malaka (2015). Environmental journalist. Personal communication. Rodríguez-Labajos, B. and J. Martínez-Alier (2013). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Recent Instances for Debate. Conservation and Society 11(4): 326-342. Sagoff, M (2008). On the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services. Environmental Values 17 (2):239-257. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton- taylor, C., Neugarten,R., Butchart, S. H. M., Collen, B., Cox,N., Master, L. L, O’Connor,S. and David Wilkie (2008). A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Conservation Revisited 23 Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology 22(4):897-911. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937. Samarakoon, J. and S. Samarawickrama (2012). An Appraisal of Challenges in the Sustainable Management of the Micro-tidal Barrier-built Estuaries and Lagoons in Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka Country Office, Colombo. xxii+171pp. Schaller, G. B (2007). A Naturalist and Other Beasts: Tales from a Life in the Field. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 272 pp. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R. P., Serna- Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S. & P.Opdam (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter- Arguments. Conservation Letters 7(6): 514– 523. Seidensticker, J (2015). Biodiversity resilience in the Central Indian Highlands is contingent on maintaining and recovering landscape connectivity: the tiger as a case study. Regional environmental Change DOI 10.1007/s10113- 015-0846-6. Seidensticker, J (2010). Saving wild tigers: A case study in biodiversity loss and challenges to be met for recovery beyond 2010. Integrative Zoology 5: 285-299. Seidensticker, J (2008). Ecological and intellectual baselines: saving lions, tigers and rhinos in Asia. Pp 98-117 in Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy (eds. Rockwood, L. Stewart, R. and T. Dietz). New York: Oxford University press. 480 pp. Seidensticker, J (2002). Aldo Leopold’s wilderness, Sand County and my garden. Pp. 46-59 In R. L. Knight and S. Riedel, eds. Aldo Leopold and the Ecological Conscience. Oxford University Press, New York. Sierra Club (2015). Mission statement. http://www.sierraclub.org/policy Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Somaratne, S. and A.H. Dhanapala (1996). Potential impact of global climate change on forest distribution in Sri Lanka. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 92 (1): 129-135. Soulé, M. E (2013). The “New Conservation” Conservation Biology 27 (5): 895–897 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12147. Soulé, M. E (1985). What Is Conservation Biology? BioScience 35(1): 727-734. Sri Lanka National Strategy and Action Plan (2009). Mangroves for the Future Programme, IUCN Sri Lanka Country Office, Colombo. xxxii + 219pp. Sri Lanka Tourist Development Authority (SLTDA) (2014). Annual Statistical Report 2014. Colombo SLTDA. 66 pp. Survey Department (2007). The National Atlas of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Government Press. 170 pp. Swarts, N. D. and K. W. Dixon (2009). Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction Annals of Botany 104: 543–556, 2009. doi:10.1093/aob/mcp025. The Free Dictionary (2015). Definition of conservation. http://www.thefreedictionary. com/ conservation Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. Thriveni, H. N., Gunaga, S. V., Ramesh Babu, H. N. and R. Vasudeva (2015). Ecological niche modeling, population status and regeneration of Coscinium fenestratum colebr. (Menispermaceae): a medicinally important liana of the central Western Ghats. Tropical Ecology 56(1): 101-110. UNEP (2009). Judges and environmental law: a handbook for the Sri Lankan judiciary. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Environmental Foundation Limited. 224 pp. UNEP (2015). Our planet. http://web.unep. org/ourplanet/ Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) (2015). Mission. http://www.unep.org/about/ Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. van der Poorten, G. and N. van der Poorten (2012). Catopsilia scylla (Linnaeus, 1763): A new record for Sri Lanka with notes on its biology, life history and distribution (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 45: 17–23. van der Poorten, G. and N. van der Poorten (2012a). Cephrenes trichopepla (Lower, 1908): A new record for Sri Lanka with notes on its biology, life history and distribution (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 156: 95–101. Warakagoda, D.H. and P.C. Rasmussen (2004). A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 124 (2):85. Wattage, P (2011). Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Coastal Ecosystems: Asian and European Perspectives Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE) Working Paper Series Paper No. 8. 17 pp. Weerakoon, D (2012). Analysis of Faunal Groups. Pp 145-147 in: The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Weerakoon, D.K. & S. Wijesundara Eds., Ministry of Environment, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Weerakoon, D.K., Gunawardene, M.D., Janaka, H.K., Jayasinghe, L.K.A., Perera, R.A.R., Fernando P and E. Wickramanayake (2004). Ranging behaviour and habitat use of elephants in Sri Lanka. Ppp 68-70 in Jayewardene, J. (ed.) Endangered Elephants: Past Present and 24 Miththapala Future. Sri Lanka: Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust. 206 pp. Weerakoon, G. and A. Aptroot (2014). Over 200 new lichen records from Sri Lanka, with three new species to science. Cryptogamie, Mycologie 35 (1): 51-62. Weragodatenna, D. (2010). An atlas of the Puttalam Lagoon area. Colombo: IUCN Sri Lanka Country Office. vii+36 pp. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/gis_atlas_f or_the_website.pdf Retrieved June 5th 2010. Wickramasinghe, L. J. M., Bandara, I. N., Vidanapathirana, D.R., Tennakoon, K.H., Samarakoon, S.R. and N. Wickramasinghe (2015). Pseudophilautus dilmah, a new species of shrub frog (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from a threatened habitat Loolkandura in Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(5): 7089–7110; http://dx. doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3501.7089-110. Wickramasinghe, L. J. M. and D. A. I. Munindradasa (2007). Review of the genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka with the description of five new species. Zootaxa 1490: 1–63. Wijeratne, M. A., Anandacoomaraswamy, A., Amarathunga, M.K.S.L.D., Ratnasiri, J., Basnayake, B.R.S.B. and and N. Kalra (2007). Assessment of impact of climate change on productivity of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) plantations in Sri Lanka. Journal of the National Science Foundation Sri Lanka 35(2): 119-126. Wijesinghe, L.C.A. de S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Jayawardana, S.D.G., Kotagama, S.W. and Gunatilleke, C.V.S (1993). Biological Conservation in Sri Lanka: A National Status Report. Colombo: IUCN, Sri Lanka. 100 pp. Wijesinghe, L.C.A. de S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Jayawardana, S.D.G., Kotagama, S.W. and Gunatilleke, C.V.S (1989). Biological Conservation in Sri Lanka: A National Status Report. Sri Lanka: NARESA. 64 pp. Wijesundara D.S.A. and D. Perera (2015). Areas of Endemism in Angiosperm Flora of Sri Lanka. National Symposium on Biogeography and Biodiversity Conservation in Sri Lanka in a Changing Climate. 12-13 November 2015. Abstracts. National Science Foundation, Colombo. 7 Wijesundara, D. S. A (2012). Present Status of Montane Forests in Sri Lanka. Pp 181-185 in: The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Weerakoon, D.K. & S. Wijesundara Eds., Ministry of Environment, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Olson, D., Morrison, J., Lamoreux, J., McKnight,M. and P. Hedao P (2001). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A Conservation Assessment. Washington, D.C.:Island Press. xxx+641 pp. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Matthew, T., Hedao, P., Conner, M., Hemley, G. and D. Bolze (1999). Where can tigers live in the future? A framework for identifying high priority areas for conservation of tigers in the wild. Pp 255-272 in (eds.) Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and P. Jackson, Riding the Tiger. Conservation in a Human Dominated Landscape.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xx+383 pp. Wildlife Conservation Society (2015). Vision. http://www.wcs.org/about-us.aspx Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. World Bank, the (2015). Environment: strategy. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environme nt/overview#2 Retrieved Sept 5th 2015. World Resources