Features

My continuing battle against the Tea Hub proposal that would have debased pure Ceylon Tea

Published

2 years ago

2023/12/31

Thilina Walpola

Multinationals have long reduced the content of Ceylon tea in packs branded as such

(Excerpted from the autobiography of Merrill J. Fernando)

The ruthless philosophy of the multinational packer and retail supplier is to buy low and sell high in mass markets in which the consumer, through relentless advertising and promotion, has been compelled to accept a well-packaged mediocrity masquerading as excellence. The intrinsic value of a product such as Pure Ceylon Tea and its inherent value proposition is subordinated to profit. Concepts such as genuine product purity and uniqueness of origin have no place in such a world. Such values do not belong in the base culture of mass-marketing of bland, homogeneous products.

The importation of cheap tea from multiple origins would immediately result in the discounting, at the Colombo Auction, of equivalent grades produced in this country, which would invariably be of a higher value than the import. In fact, the cost of any cheap imported tea would be well below our national cost of production, which, for a number of well known reasons, is the highest in the world.

A glut of such low-priced imported tea would depress auction prices overall and adversely impact the grower and producer, who are already burdened by high production costs and diminishing land and worker productivity. In the meantime, the cheap blend, with its desirability enhanced by the legend ‘packed in Sri Lanka/Ceylon,’ will be perceived as genuine Ceylon Tea by the overseas consumer. That perception will cause irreparable damage to the image of Pure Ceylon Tea and, also, to the exporter of the genuine product.

Despite the many abuses it has been subject to over the years, at the hands of multinationals and other traders, who have no respect for either purity or origins, Ceylon Tea is not a commodity as other teas are. Pure Ceylon Tea, of itself and in itself, is a brand and a specialty in the eyes of the consumer. There is no other tea in the world which is recognized internationally by the country of its origin like Ceylon Tea; nor is any other country globally identified by the tea it produces like Sri Lanka/Ceylon.

Up to about 20 years ago, Ceylon Tea was promoted and marketed on that unique value proposition and that memory still lingers in the minds of the older, middle-aged consumer. It was that memory of quality which ensured the success of Dilmah in Australia, despite it being priced well above its competing brands produced by the big multinationals.

Historically, though, commoditization has been the strategy of the trader, the promotion of the brand on the strength of the quality image of Ceylon Tea and then gradually reducing the latter component, thus deluding the overseas consumer and impoverishing the local farmer. Consumers who purchase blindly on brand loyalty do not perceive the gradual erosion in the quality of the cup of tea they drink every day. They will continue to patronize the debased product as a conditioned reflex to compelling advertising and promotion.

A recent example of the strategy described above is the fate of the Russian market, first serviced by our own traders, who, instead of developing own labels when the opportunity arose, chose the easy path and became servitors of the foreign label. The end result was an ignominious exit from the market when the Russian buyer, having established market share on the strength of Ceylon Tea, took his business elsewhere or established his own packing plants in Russia itself.

Value addition, branding, and marketing have, for long, been the weakest features in our export field. Despite all their arguments to the contrary, increasing the total value of our exports using cheap imported tea is not practically possible. The immediate result would be the decline of the export price of Pure Ceylon Tea.

Value-added tea is already being exported at prices ranging from Rs. 600 per kg to Rs. 1,100 per kg. The availability of Ceylon Tea at those prices, automatically weakens the argument for importation of cheap tea, unless the purpose is simply to devalue the export price.

It is also most unlikely that global players in the tea trade, packing in-market, using cheap, multi-origin tea, would rush to Sri Lanka to establish packing centres with the establishment of a Tea Hub. We are far removed from the main markets of the global packers and the only inducements for them to set up operations in Sri Lanka would be the availability of low-cost labour and cheap tea, at rock-bottom prices, the margin savings overriding other disadvantages, such as additional shipping and distribution costs. Such operators will not buy the high-priced Ceylon Tea, unless the proposed massive influx of imported tea drives the local auction prices down to the floor! Is it necessary to emphasize that such a scenario would be the death knell for the local producer?

Unacceptable comparisons, Garment Sector vs. Tea Export Industry

Blending hubs such as Dubai and Rotterdam, examples frequently used by the Tea Hub proponents as ideal models for replication, cannot be equated with Sri Lanka, which is a major producer. Such hubs are commercial centers which facilitate the recycling of products from multiple origins and owe no allegiance to producing countries.

As for the much-touted increase in employment generated by a Tea Hub, it is a myth, as any new blending or packing plant would be fully automated and designed specifically to minimize manual labour. In an industrialized world relentlessly driving towards robotization of processes, manpower is the first designated casualty in any new venture.

The loss of traditional markets for our tea has not been due to price concerns, but largely due to our inadequacies in value addition, marketing, and promotion. The emergence of ‘Dilmah’ as a premier product in Australia and New Zealand, despite being much higher in price than the corresponding products from large multinationals, is proof of the effectiveness of product promotion on the intrinsic strengths of the product itself. It completely negates the argument that multi-origin, cheap blends will override the uniqueness of Pure Ceylon Tea on cost alone.

Our tea has for long been acclaimed as the ‘cleanest tea in the world,’ meeting the Minimum Residue Levels (MRL) stipulated by some of the most demanding markets in the world, such as Japan. The importation of cheap tea from multiple origins, of unregulated hygiene and cleanliness standards, would immediately defile that image irrevocably.

The garment sector in Sri Lanka and the establishment of special Free Trade Zones (FTZs) have been quoted by the TEA (Tea Export Association) as successful examples of special manufacturing enclaves, equivalent to the proposed Tea Hub. In my view those are most inappropriate comparisons, as unacceptable as a ‘chalk and cheese’ equivalent.

The apparel industry exists almost entirely for the servicing of foreign labels, with 95% of the components being imported, whilst, locally, we simply supply the labor. It is. essentially, a massive labor- intensive operation, dedicated to the concept of maximum production at the lowest cost, but embellished with attractive labels, supported by cutting-edge technology, best manufacturing practices, and compliance with international standards, process hygiene and worker safety.

I am not, even for one moment, belittling the success of the garment industry in Sri Lanka, but those are the realities. Sri Lankans do not own the garment industry and are almost entirely dependent on foreign label patronage for continued existence. In that respect alone, the garment industry in Sri Lanka is very similar to the foreign label service provided by Sri Lankan traders to multi-national tea packers. The establishment of a Tea Hub will relegate our tea industry to that unattractive niche. As long as we are in control of the production of the raw material, we have the power to strategize how and where we sell it and at what price.

The establishment of FTZs was to ensure that the finished product, or the raw material, is not leaked out to local markets. As opposed to that, in the plantation industry, possibly over 95% of the raw material and other components are generated locally. It is a totally home-grown industry where the raw material, in its totality, is produced within.

There are only two sustainable ways of increasing the export value of our tea. One is to improve our land and labour productivity and increase annual production and, thus, send more tea to the auction annually. Another is to increase value addition at source to locally-owned brands, thus enhancing the export price. In fact, simply increasing production without a parallel strategy for adding value is also counterproductive.

Auction prices are determined by supply/ demand dynamics which are outside the producers’ area of control and a combination of both volume and quality will not ensure a sustainable revenue increase. Finally, value addition at source to a good quality finished product, namely ‘Pure Ceylon Tea,’ is the surest method of increasing earnings.

Every kilo of tea produced in Ceylon sells at premium prices and, irrespective of other market dynamics, is still considered as a benchmark for overall quality. In such a scenario, the only objective of devaluing it would be for personal gain, in order to compete with the mass-selling, low-priced, multinational trader.

Example of exploitation

The multinational traders’ exploitative strategy in regard to third world products is best illustrated by coffee, grown in countries such as Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia, Ethiopia, Uganda, and many other countries in Africa. In all the countries where coffee is grown in volume, the per capita income of the farmer is a fraction of that of an average farmer in a developed country and miniscule in comparison to the earnings of the average coffee consumer in the West.

Colvin R. de Silva, as Minister of Plantations, was one of the first politicians to publicly and unequivocally articulate this unacceptable disparity. For every plastic cup of coffee sold for USD 3-4 in affluent societies, the farmer in Africa gets five cents. From a kilogramme of coffee sold at USD 2.75, 110 cups can be brewed, translating to a profit margin of over USD 300 for those in between the poor farmer and the rich consumer.

The story of the tea trade in the hands of the multinational tea trader is no different and the cheapening of Ceylon Tea by importing, blending, and re-exporting will contribute further to that unacceptable social and economic disequilibrium.

It is a cardinal rule of all major packers – multinationals – never to purchase their material from one source or origin. Invariably they operate through two or more suppliers. However, because of the excellent and longstanding quality proposition of Ceylon Tea and the confidence we inspired in all the buyers of the major retailers, for many decades Ceylon Tea used to be, if not the major component, the most important ingredient of multinational packs.

Disappointing indications

During a previous Government’s term, the then Finance Minister, Ravi Karunanayake, deluded by the facile arguments of the Tea Hub proponents, facilitated the importation of tea in one of his budgets.

However, my protests against this provision, supported by the then Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, resulted in its removal.

I must also admit to being disappointed by the stance of the Planters’ Association, in regard to the issue of the Tea Hub. I recall a strongly-worded press statement (Daily FT, May 17, 2012), in which the PA declared its opposition to the concept. However, as the umbrella body which primarily represents producer interests, I would have expected it to come out far more strongly, vocally, and actively, against an initiative with the very obvious potential to cause serious damage producer.

Sometime in March 2012, immediately after a meeting of the anvil, chaired by me, certain members of the Tea Council met then Plantations Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe, and advised him that they would boycott future meetings of the Council chaired by me if I continued to oppose the TEA proposals regarding importation of tea. However, they did not breathe a word about this matter at the meeting itself, though that was the most obvious forum for the issue to have been discussed.

Frankly, I was disgusted by the base conduct of those exporters and, by my letter of March 30, 2012, addressed to Minister Samarasinghe, I resigned from the chairmanship of the Council. In my letter I also clearly stated the reasons for my resignation. The Minister accepted it and appointed Tyeab Akberally, Vice Chairman, to the position I relinquished.

The Tea Council was set up in 1989, under the direction of the then Minister of Plantations, Gamini Dissanayake. Its core purpose was resolving the many problems of the entire industry, in a manner that would benefit the industry in its totality; the plantation worker, the producer, the broker, and the exporter, all included. The very submission of a proposal which only addressed the interests of the exporter, to the obvious detriment of all other stakeholders, was in conflict with the remit of the Council.

Dr. P. B. Jayasundera, then Secretary to the Treasury, has always been a strong opponent of the Tea Hub concept. Addressing the CTTA’s 118th Annual General Meeting in late 2012, ironically flanked at the head table by a couple of ardent proponents of the Tea Hub concept, Dr. Jayasundera stated quite unequivocally that the only manner in which the export earnings from tea could be increased was by “creating a new development framework and promoting Ceylon Tea at a premium, setting aside the idea of making the country a Tea Hub”.

Basically, what Dr. Jayasundera supported was to position Sri Lanka as an exclusive centre for value addition to Pure Ceylon Tea and not to convert it to a trading platform for tea from any and every origin.

Bleak certainties

To any impartial observer, it would be clear that the TEA call for liberalization of imports was driven by the sense of insecurity, generated by the rapidly-diminishing profit margins of the proponents. It is a proposal which reflects, with embarrassing clarity, the mindset of the timid exporter and his submission to foreign label pressure. In my many arguments against the Hub, I have frequently requested its supporters to take a moment to consider why a few exporters from Sri Lanka sell comfortably at USD 10 FOB per kilo, whilst others scramble at the bottom, selling at USD 3 per kilo.

All the multinationals operating in Sri Lanka are now manned entirely by Sri Lankans and the industry’s reliance on the former to market our tea should be minimal. However, I am both baffled and saddened by the still very evident orientation and adherence within the industry to archaic multinational thinking and strategy.

In their hunger for short-term gain, the proponents of the Tea Hub are prepared to sacrifice the long-term potential of Pure Ceylon Tea, as well as consign the hundreds of thousands of low-income earners at the producers’ end to permanent impoverishment. In their pursuit of immediate and short term survival, they are prepared to surrender every natural advantage in ‘Pure Ceylon Tea’. The reality is that it is the locally-owned brands exporting exclusively ‘Pure Ceylon Tea,’ which are the flag bearers of the national product on the global stage.

In total, about 12% of this country’s population is dependent, either directly or indirectly, on the plantation economy. Of that proportion, about 90% toil at the producers’ end; plantation workers and residents, small-holders, their dependents, ancillary service suppliers, bought leaf manufacturers, and so on. A decline in the Colombo tea prices, arising from cheap imports, would result in a permanent adverse impact on the lives of this multitude, whilst temporarily enriching a minuscule proportion at the exporters’ end.

Pure Ceylon Tea was, and still is, this country’s greatest asset. It’s a primary home-grown product and identifies Ceylon/Sri Lanka globally. Its real value and significance have either been misinterpreted by successive governments, and many of our local traders, but fully exploited by the multinational who understood its actual worth. Through Ceylon Tea, the country has a product which can stand alone and compete successfully against any tea grown or manufactured in any other country. The maximization of its inherent value proposition simply requires vision, dedication, and integrity of purpose.

For over a century we have permitted Ceylon Tea, a valuable and attractive ‘finished product’ with enormous potential to this country, to be exported by multinational companies to other countries as a ‘raw material’. The importing countries debase its natural quality by blending with inferior tea from other origins, whilst reducing its cost and, with pretty packaging, claim to add value to a less-than-mediocre mix, but still sell it on its intrinsic value as Ceylon Tea. In the process, the tea that is grown by the farmer in our country enriches a chain which has no real link to his country, at the expense of our producer, our farmer, and our plantation worker.

What the proponents of the Tea Hub are advocating so strongly is the replication of the same odious process, in the country of the orign of Ceylon Tea, though they have clothed the proposal in noble rhetoric, as a panacea for all the ills of the tea industry.

Pure Ceylon Tea is still synonymous with quality in the many countries in which it has been a traditional brew, despite the debasement it has suffered at the hands of multinationals who, whilst devaluing its intrinsic goodness, still leveraged the original quality perception in their marketing. Thus, packers determine the quality that they offer the consumer, as the purchasing choice of the latter is limited to what is available on the supermarket shelf.

This compulsion created by the multi-national marketer appears to have created an illusory perception in the minds of certain exporters, especially the Tea Hub proponents, that the cheap, debased tea is actually a consumer demand or preference. Dilmah, however, convincingly exploded this myth with its success in the marketing of quality ‘Pure Ceylon Tea’ in Australia and New Zealand.

Marshalling the opposition

At the beginning of this chapter I referred to the proposal by the then Trade Minister, Lalith Athulathmudali, in 1979, which, to the best of my knowledge, was the first instance when a leading politician presented tea importation as a strategy with potential for economic benefit to the country. To the best of my recollection, there had been no serious discussion about it before, although I am certain that the idea would have been tossed around in tea trading circles. It is really in the 1980s that wider discussion around the concept commenced, eventually gathering momentum until, within a couple of decades, it became an existential threat to the tea industry in its totality.

When I first opposed Athulathmudali’s proposal, I was, essentially, a bulk tea exporter. Dilmah arrived almost 10 years later. Thus, it must be clear to all readers that my opposition to the concept of a Tea Hub, contrary to the arguments of my opponents, was not to protect my interests or my personal brand, but entirely in the larger interests of the tea industry of Sri Lanka. It is for that reason that in this writing I have explained in considerable detail the likely impact of the implementation of such a proposal.

In the years since 2010, during which the Tea Hub proposal has been canvassed by its advocates at all relevant forums, I have used all the resources that I was able to muster to oppose it. My views have been expressed publicly, via newspapers and the electronic media, whilst concurrently being made known at the highest levels of government. I was also able to enlist the support of the Tea Small Holders’ Association and the assistance of the Private Tea Factory Owners’ Association, whilst the Planters’ Association also endorsed my view. However, as I have said earlier in this writing, from the latter I would have welcomed a far more involved engagement in opposition given that, in the event of unrestricted importation, the producer stood to lose more than any other industry group.

Independent journalists of several newspapers, both Sinhala and English, also published articles in support. My friend Herman Gunaratne, plantation owner and specialty tea producer-exporter from Galle, with his passion for Pure Ceylon Tea and his wide contacts within the smallholder segment and private factory owners of the south, was of immense help to me in marshalling support in resistance of the Tea Hub proposal.

The combined strength of the opposition groups, representing about 12% of the country’s population, eventually succeeded in temporarily suppressing a scheme which would have briefly benefited a few thousand people at most. However, the industry needs to be always aware of and be constantly on guard against a resurgence of the Tea Hub movement. If implemented, it will be, for a short while, very profitable for the proponents who are only interested in short-term gain. Since there is money in it, albeit for a handful of profiteers, I suspect that the idea will never be abandoned altogether, irrespective of opposition.

The Tea Hub proposition is a delusional attempt to bridge the chasm between the supplier of tea and the marketer of tea. It is a futile exercise to conflate these two mutually-exclusive concepts. The supplier furnishes a featureless commodity whilst the marketer markets a branded product with a specific identity. There can never connection between these two extremes. Finally, despite all opposition, if the Hub eventually becomes a dismal reality, and the local tea industry collapses as a result – as it surely will – there will not be one expert at that time to acknowledge responsibility and openly say, “Yes, I supported the importation of Orthodox Tea!”

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Sri Lanka to Remove Barriers to Women Rising to Top Roles in Military

Don't Miss

2024:Year of the Chinese Dragon and the Year of South Asian Elections

Click to comment

Features

The Venezuela Model:The new ugly and dangerous world order

Published

1 day ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

The US armed forces invading Venezuela, removing its President Nicolás Maduro from power and abducting him and his wife Cilia Flores on 3 January 2026, flying them to New York and producing Maduro in a New York kangaroo court is now stale news, but a fact. What is a far more potent fact is the pan-global impotent response to this aggression except in Latin America, China, Russia and a few others.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro described the attack as an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America, thereby portraying the aggression as an assault on the whole of Latin America. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva referred to the attack as crossing “an unacceptable line” that set an “extremely dangerous precedent.” Again, one can see his concern goes beyond Venezuela. For Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum the attack was in “clear violation” of the UN Charter, which again is a fact. But when it comes to powerful countries, the UN Charter has been increasingly rendered irrelevant over decades, and by extension, the UN itself. For the French Foreign Minister, the operation went against the “principle of non-use of force that underpins international law” and that lasting political solutions cannot be “imposed by the outside.” UN Secretary General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” about the “dangerous precedent” the United States has set where rules of international law were not being respected. Russia, notwithstanding its bloody and costly entanglement in Ukraine, and China have also issued strong statements.

Comparatively however, many other countries, many of whom are long term US allies who have been vocal against the Russian aggression in Ukraine have been far more sedate in their reaction. Compared to his Foreign Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron said the Venezuelan people could “only rejoice” at the ousting of Maduro while the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz believed Maduro had “led his country into ruin” and that the U.S. intervention required “careful consideration.” The British and EU statements have been equally lukewarm. India’s and Sri Lanka’s statements do not even mention the US while Sri Lanka’s main coalition partner the JVP has issued a strongly worded statement.

Taken together, what is lacking in most of these views, barring a negligible few, especially from the so-called powerful countries, is the moral indignation or outrage on a broad scale that used to be the case in similar circumstances earlier. It appears that a new ugly and dangerous world order has finally arrived, footprints of which have been visible for some time.

It is not that the US has not invaded sovereign countries and affected regime change or facilitated such change for political or economic reasons earlier. This has been attempted in Cuba without success since the 1950s but with success in Chile in 1973 under the auspices of Augusto Pinochet that toppled the legitimate government of president Salvador Allende and established a long-lasting dictatorship friendly towards the US; the invasion of Panama and the ouster and capture of President Manuel Noriega in 1989 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq both of which were conducted under the presidency of George Bush.

These are merely a handful of cross border criminal activities against other countries focused on regime change that the US has been involved in since its establishment which also includes the ouster of President of Guyana Cheddi Jagan in 1964, the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 stop the return of President Juan Bosch to prevent a ‘communist resurgence’; the 1983 US invasion of Grenada after the overthrow and killing of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop purportedly to ensure that the island would not become a ‘Soviet-Cuban’ colony. A more recent adventure was the 2004 removal and kidnapping of the Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which also had French support.

There is however a difference between all the earlier examples of US aggression and the Venezuelan operation. The earlier operations where the real reasons may have varied from political considerations based on ideological divergence to crude economics, were all couched in the rhetoric of democracy. That is, they were undertaken in the guise of ushering democratic changes in those countries, the region or the world irrespective of the long-term death and destruction which followed in some locations. But in Venezuela under President Donald Trump, it is all about controlling natural resources in that country to satisfy US commercial interests.

The US President is already on record for saying the US will “run” Venezuela until a “safe transition” is concluded and US oil companies will “go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money” – ostensibly for the US and those in Venezuela who will tag the US line. Trump is also on record saying that the main aim of the operation was to regain U.S. oil rights, which according to him were “stolen” when Venezuela nationalized the industry. The nationalization was obviously to ensure that the funds from the industry remained in the country even though in later times this did lead to massive internal corruption.

Let’s be realistic. Whatever the noise of the new rhetoric is, this is not about ‘developing’ Venezuela for the benefit of its people based on some unknown streak of altruism but crudely controlling and exploiting its natural assets as was the case with Iraq. As crude as it is, one must appreciate Trump’s unintelligent honesty stemming from his own unmitigated megalomania. Whatever US government officials may say, the bottom line is the entire operation was planned and carried out purely for commercial and monetary gain while the pretext was Maduro being ‘a narco-terrorist.’ There is no question that Maduro was a dictator who was ruining his own country. But there is also no question that it is not the business of the US or any other country to decide what his or Venezuela’s fate is. That remains with the Venezuelan people.

What is dangerous is, the same ‘narco-terrorist’ rhetoric can also be applied to other Latin American countries such as Columbia, Brazil and Mexico which also produce some of the narcotics that come into the US consumer markets. The response should be not to invade these countries to stem the flow, but to deal with the market itself, which is the US. In real terms what Trump has achieved with his invasion of Venezuela for purely commercial gain and greed, followed by the abject silence or lukewarm reaction from most of the world, is to create a dangerous and ugly new normal for military actions across international borders. The veneer of democracy has also been dispensed with.

The danger lies in the fact that this new doctrine or model Trump has devised can similarly be applied to any country whose resources or land a powerful megalomaniac leader covets as long as he has unlimited access to military assets of his country, backed by the dubius remnants of the political and social safety networks, commonsense and ethics that have been conveniently dismantled. This is a description of the present-day United States too. This danger is boosted when the world remains silent. After the success of the Venezuela operation, Trump has already upended his continuing threats to annex Greenland because “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” Greenland too is not about security, but commerce given its vast natural resources.

Hours after Venezuela, Trump threatened the Colombian President Gustavo Petro to “watch his ass.” In the present circumstances, Canadians also would not have forgotten Trump’s threat earlier in 2025 to annex Canada. But what the US President and his current bandwagon replete with arrogance and depleted intelligence would not understand is, beyond the short-term success of the Venezuela operation and its euphoria, the dangerous new normal they have ushered in would also create counter threats towards the US, the region and the world in a scale far greater than what exists today. The world will also become a far less safe place for ordinary American citizens.

More crucially, it will also complicate global relations. It would no longer be possible for the mute world leaders to condemn Russian action in Ukraine or if China were to invade Taiwan. The model has been created by Trump, and these leaders have endorsed it. My reading is that their silence is not merely political timidity, but strategic to their own national and self-interest, to see if the Trump model could be adopted in other situations in future if the fallout can be managed.

The model for the ugly new normal has been created and tested by Trump. Its deciding factors are greed and dismantled ethics. It is now up to other adventurers to fine tune it. We would be mere spectators and unwitting casualties.

Features

Beyond the beauty: Hidden risks at waterfalls

Published

1 day ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

Bambarakanda waterfall. Image courtesy LANKA EXCURSIONS HOLIDAYS

Sri Lanka is blessed with a large number of scenic waterfalls, mainly concentrated in the central highlands. These natural features substantially enhance the country’s attractiveness to tourists. Further, these famous waterfalls equally attract thousands of local visitors throughout the year.

While waterfalls offer aesthetic appeal, a serene environment, and recreational opportunities, they also pose a range of significant hazards. Unfortunately, the visitors are often unable to identify these different types of risks, as site-specific safety information and proper warning signs are largely absent. In most locations, only general warnings are displayed, often limited to the number of past fatalities. This can lead visitors to assume that bathing is the sole hazard, which is not the case. Therefore, understanding the full range of waterfall-related risks and implementing appropriate safety measures is essential for preventing loss of life. This article highlights site-specific hazards to raise public awareness and prevent people from putting their lives at risk due to these hidden dangers.

Flash floods and resultant water surges

Flash floods are a significant hazard in hill-country waterfalls. According to the country’s topography, most of the streams originate from the catchments in the hilly areas upstream of the waterfalls. When these catchments receive intense rainfalls, the subsequent runoff will flow down as flash floods. This will lead to an unexpected rise in the flow of the waterfall, increasing the risk of drowning and even sweeping away people. Therefore, bathing at such locations is extremely dangerous, and those who are even at the river banks have to be vigilant and should stay away from the stream as much as possible. The Bopath Ella, Ravana Ella, and a few waterfalls located in the Belihul Oya area, closer to the A99 road, are classic examples of this scenario.

Water currents

The behaviour of water in the natural pool associated with the waterfall is complex and unpredictable. Although the water surface may appear calm, strong subsurface currents and hydraulic forces exist that even a skilled swimmer cannot overcome. Hence, a person who immerses confidently may get trapped inside and disappear. Water from a high fall accelerates rapidly, forming hydraulic jumps and vortices that can trap swimmers or cause panic. Hence, bathing in these natural pools should be totally avoided unless there is clear evidence that they are safe.

Slipping risks

Slipping is a common hazard around waterfalls. Sudden loss of footing can lead to serious injuries or fatal falls into deep pools or rock surfaces. The area around many waterfalls consists of steep, slippery rocks due to moisture and the growth of algae. Sometimes, people are overconfident and try to climb these rocks for the thrill of it and to get a better view of the area. Further, due to the presence of submerged rocks, water depths vary in the natural pool area, and there is a chance of sliding down along slippery rocks into deep water. Waterfalls such as Diyaluma, Bambarakanda, and Ravana Falls are likely locations for such hazards, and caution around these sites is a must.

Rockfalls

Rockfalls are a significant hazard around waterfalls in steep terrains. Falling rocks can cause serious injuries or fatalities, and smaller stones may also be carried by fast-flowing water. People bathing directly beneath waterfalls, especially smaller ones, are therefore exposed to a high risk of injury. Accordingly, regardless of the height of the waterfall, bathing under the falling water should be avoided.

Hypothermia and cold shock

Hypothermia is a drop in body temperature below 35°C due to cold exposure. This leads to mental confusion, slowed heartbeat, muscle stiffening, and even cardiac arrest may follow. Waterfalls in Nuwara Eliya district often have very low water temperatures. Hence, immersing oneself in these waters is dangerous, particularly for an extended period.

Human negligence

Additional hazards also arise from visitors’ own negligence. Overcrowding at popular waterfalls significantly increases the risk of accidents, including slips and falls from cliffs. Sometimes, visitors like to take adventurous photographs in dangerous positions. Reckless behavior, such as climbing over barriers, ignoring warning signs, or swimming in prohibited zones, amplifies the risk.

Mitigation and safety

measures

Mitigation of waterfall-related hazards requires a combination of public awareness, engineering solutions, and policy enforcement. Clear warning signs that indicate the specific hazards associated with the water fall, rather than general hazard warnings, must be fixed. Educating visitors verbally and distributing bills that include necessary guidelines at ticket counters, where applicable, will be worth considering. Furthermore, certain restrictions should vary depending on the circumstances, especially seasonal variation of water flow, existing weather, etc.

Physical barriers should be installed to prevent access to dangerous areas by fencing. A viewing platform can protect people from many hazards discussed above. For bathing purposes, safer zones can be demarcated with access facilities.

Installing an early warning system for heavily crowded waterfalls like Bopath Ella, which is prone to flash floods, is worth implementing. Through a proper mechanism, a warning system can alert visitors when the upstream area receives rainfall that may lead to flash floods in the stream.

At present, there are hardly any officials to monitor activities around waterfalls. The local authorities that issue tickets and collect revenue have to deploy field officers to these waterfalls sites for monitoring the activities of visitors. This will help reduce not only accidents but also activities that cause environmental pollution and damage. We must ensure that these natural treasures remain a source of wonder rather than danger.

(The writer is a chartered Civil Engineer specialising in water resources engineering)

By Eng. Thushara Dissanayake ✍️

Features

From sacred symbol to silent victim: Sri Lanka’s elephants in crisis

Published

1 day ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

The year 2025 began with grim news. On 1st January, a baby elephant was struck and killed by a train in Habarana, marking the start of a tragic series of elephant–train collisions that continued throughout the year. In addition to these incidents, the nation mourned the deaths of well-known elephants such as Bathiya and Kandalame Hedakaraya, among many others. As the year drew on, further distressing reports emerged, including the case of an injured elephant that was burnt with fire, an act of extreme cruelty that ultimately led to its death. By the end of the year, Sri Lanka recorded the highest number of elephant deaths in Asia.

This sorrowful reality stands in stark contrast to Sri Lanka’s ancient spiritual heritage. Around 250 BCE, at Mihintale, Arahant Mahinda delivered the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta (The Shorter Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint) to King Devanampiyatissa, marking the official introduction of Buddhism to the island. The elephant, a symbol deeply woven into this historic moment, was once associated with wisdom, restraint, and reverence.

Yet the recent association between Mihintale and elephants has been anything but noble. At Mihintale an elephant known as Ambabo, already suffering from a serious injury to his front limb due to human–elephant conflict (HEC), endured further cruelty when certain local individuals attempted to chase him away using flaming torches, burning him with fire. Despite the efforts of wildlife veterinary surgeons, Ambabo eventually succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem report confirmed severe liver and kidney impairment, along with extensive trauma caused by the burns.

Was prevention possible?

The question that now arises is whether this tragedy could have been prevented.

To answer this, we must examine what went wrong.

When Ambabo first sustained an injury to his forelimb, he did receive veterinary treatment. However, after this initial care, no close or continuous monitoring was carried out. This lack of follow-up is extremely dangerous, especially when an injured elephant remains near human settlements. In such situations, some individuals may attempt to chase, harass, or further harm the animal, without regard for its condition.

A similar sequence of events occurred in the case of Bathiya. He was initially wounded by a trap gun—devices generally intended for poaching bush meat rather than targeting elephants. Following veterinary treatment, his condition showed signs of improvement. Tragically, while he was still recovering, he was shot a second time behind the ear. This second wound likely damaged vital nerves, including the vestibular nerve, which plays a critical role in balance, coordination of movement, gaze stabilisation, spatial orientation, navigation, and trunk control. In effect, the second shooting proved far more devastating than the first.

After Bathiya received his initial treatment, he was left without proper protection due to the absence of assigned wildlife rangers. This critical gap in supervision created the opportunity for the second attack. Only during the final stages of his suffering were the 15th Sri Lanka Artillery Regiment, the 9th Battalion of the Sri Lanka National Guard, and the local police deployed—an intervention that should have taken place much earlier.

Likewise, had Ambabo been properly monitored and protected after his injury, it is highly likely that his condition would not have deteriorated to such a tragic extent.

It should also be mentioned that when an injured animal like an elephant is injured, the animal will undergo a condition that is known as ‘capture myopathy’. It is a severe and often fatal condition that affects wild animals, particularly large mammals such as elephants, deer, antelope, and other ungulates. It is a stress-induced disease that occurs when an animal experiences extreme physical exertion, fear, or prolonged struggle during capture, restraint, transport, or pursuit by humans. The condition develops when intense stress causes a surge of stress hormones, leading to rapid muscle breakdown. This process releases large amounts of muscle proteins and toxins into the bloodstream, overwhelming vital organs such as the kidneys, heart, and liver. As a result, the animal may suffer from muscle degeneration, dehydration, metabolic acidosis, and organ failure. Clinical signs of capture myopathy include muscle stiffness, weakness, trembling, incoordination, abnormal posture, collapse, difficulty breathing, dark-coloured urine, and, in severe cases, sudden death. In elephants, the condition can also cause impaired trunk control, loss of balance, and an inability to stand for prolonged periods. Capture myopathy can appear within hours of a stressful event or may develop gradually over several days. So, if the sick animal is harassed like it happened to Ambabo, it does only make things worse. Unfortunately, once advanced symptoms appear, treatment is extremely difficult and survival rates are low, making prevention the most effective strategy.

What needs to be done?

Ambabo’s harassment was not an isolated incident; at times injured elephants have been subjected to similar treatment by local communities. When an injured elephant remains close to human settlements, it is essential that wildlife officers conduct regular and continuous monitoring. In fact, it should be made mandatory to closely observe elephants in critical condition for a period even after treatment has been administered—particularly when they remain in proximity to villages. This approach is comparable to admitting a critically ill patient to a hospital until recovery is assured.

At present, such sustained monitoring is difficult due to the severe shortage of staff in the Department of Wildlife Conservation. Addressing this requires urgent recruitment and capacity-building initiatives, although these solutions cannot be realised overnight. In the interim, it is vital to enlist the support of the country’s security forces. Their involvement is not merely supportive—it is essential for protecting both wildlife and people.

To mitigate HEC, a Presidential Committee comprising wildlife specialists developed a National Action Plan in 2020. The strategies outlined in this plan were selected for their proven effectiveness, adaptability across different regions and timeframes, and cost-efficiency. The process was inclusive, incorporating extensive consultations with the public and relevant authorities. If this Action Plan is fully implemented, it holds strong potential to significantly reduce HEC and prevent tragedies like the suffering endured by Ambabo. In return it will also benefit villagers living in those areas.

In conclusion, I would like to share the wise words of Arahant Mahinda to the king, which, by the way, apply to every human being:

O’ great king, the beasts that roam the forest and birds that fly the skies have the same right to this land as you. The land belongs to the people and to all other living things, and you are not its owner but only its guardian.

by Tharindu Muthukumarana ✍️
tharinduele@gmail.com
(Author of the award-winning book “The Life of Last Proboscideans: Elephants”)