Connect with us

Features

Deforestation in Sri Lanka (2001-2024): Trends, Drivers, and Policy Implications

Published

on

File photo courtesy of Vibuda Wijebandara/Centre for Environmental Justice/Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka, an island known for its rich biodiversity and lush landscapes, is facing a critical environmental challenge. A comprehensive analysis of satellite data from 2001 to 2024 reveals a clear and concerning trend: the nation’s forests are disappearing at an accelerating rate, with net losses that threaten its ecological integrity and natural heritage. This report presents the findings of this analysis, providing a data-driven look at the scale, location, and causes of tree cover loss across the country.

The central finding is unambiguous: the overwhelming driver of this decline is the expansion of permanent agriculture, which accounts for nearly 90% of all tree cover loss. This modern pressure is the latest chapter in a long history of land-use change in Sri Lanka. The colonial era saw vast tracts of forest cleared for coffee, tea, and rubber plantations. After independence in 1948, national development projects, most notably the massive Mahaweli River Development scheme, converted further forest land for agriculture and settlement. Today, in the post-conflict era, a combination of infrastructure development, smallholder farming, and commercial agriculture continues to exert intense pressure on the remaining forests.

This report utilizes high-resolution data from Global Forest Watch to move beyond general statistics and provide a precise understanding of this complex issue. By analyzing over two decades of change, we can identify where and why deforestation is happening, offering a crucial evidence base for policymakers, conservationists, and the public. The following pages will detail the key findings of this analysis, covering the loss of vital primary forests, the primary causes of deforestation, the geographic hotspots of loss, and the hidden crisis of forest degradation. Finally, we will discuss the urgent policy implications and offer recommendations for a more sustainable path forward.

The Accelerating Loss of Tree Cover

Over the past two decades, Sri Lanka has experienced a significant and accelerating loss of tree cover. “Tree cover” is defined as any vegetation taller than five meters and includes natural forests as well as commercial plantations. It is important to note that “tree cover loss” can include harvesting in plantations, but in the context of the identified drivers, it largely reflects permanent land clearing.

Between 2001 and 2024, a total of 234,000 hectares of tree cover was lost—an area roughly the size of the entire Hambantota district. The average annual loss was 9,338 hectares. More concerning than the total number is the upward trend; the rate of loss has generally increased over the period, with sharp peaks in recent years where annual losses exceeded 15,000 hectares. This indicates that the pressures on Sri Lanka’s landscapes are intensifying (Figure 3)

The Silent Erosion of Primary Forests

While the loss of all tree cover is concerning, the destruction of primary forests—mature, natural tropical forests that are irreplaceable hubs of biodiversity—is particularly alarming. The analysis shows that Sri Lanka lost 11,300 hectares of these vital ecosystems between 2002 and 2024. The pattern of loss is highly volatile, with sharp spikes in certain years, suggesting that these critical forests are being targeted by specific, large-scale projects rather than a slow, steady encroachment. Though the rate has slowed slightly in the long term, the persistent loss confirms these essential ecosystems remain under severe threat.

The Overwhelming Cause: Agriculture’s Expanding Footprint

The data provides a clear answer to the question of what is driving this loss. The analysis attributes tree cover loss to a dominant cause within each area, revealing one factor that dwarfs all others.

· Permanent Agriculture (88.9%): Nearly nine out of every ten hectares of tree cover lost in Sri Lanka were cleared for permanent agriculture. This category includes the expansion of large-scale plantations like tea, rubber, and oil palm, as well as the ongoing expansion of smallholder farming into forested areas. This finding unequivocally identifies the agricultural sector as the primary engine of deforestation in the country.

· Secondary Drivers: All other drivers contribute on a much smaller scale. The expansion of Settlements & Infrastructure (4.1%) reflects ongoing urbanization and development, while Logging (3.2%) represents a smaller, though still significant, pressure. The negligible impact of natural causes like wildfire (0.1%) confirms that tree cover loss in Sri Lanka is almost entirely a human-driven phenomenon. (Figures 1 & 4)

Where is Deforestation Happening? The Hotspot Districts

The pressure on forests is not spread evenly across the island. The analysis reveals a clear geographic concentration of deforestation, identifying several key hotspots.

Between 2000 and 2020, the districts of Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, and Vavuniya experienced the highest levels of tree cover loss. These areas represent Sri Lanka’s active agricultural frontiers, where forests are most actively being converted for cultivation.

In contrast, the most densely populated urban districts, such as Colombo and Gampaha, show minimal tree cover loss. This is not because of successful conservation, but because these areas underwent extensive deforestation in the past, leaving very little forest to be cleared today. The modern frontier of deforestation has decisively shifted to the nation’s rural and developing districts.

Forest Degradation and Net Loss

Beyond the headline numbers of deforestation, the data reveals a more nuanced and equally troubling story of forest degradation and an unsustainable imbalance between loss and gain.

An Unsustainable Imbalance: Net Loss of Tree Cover

A healthy forest landscape requires a balance where any losses are offset by gains through natural regeneration or reforestation. In Sri Lanka, this balance is severely skewed. Between 2000 and 2020, the area of tree cover loss (235,000 hectares) was nearly four times greater than the area of tree cover gain (60,079 hectares). This results in a clear and unsustainable net loss of the nation’s forests.

Furthermore, while there is some tree cover gain—primarily in the districts of Monaragala, Anuradhapura, and Puttalam—this does not necessarily signal ecological recovery. “Gain” in the data includes the growth of commercial monoculture plantations, which lack the rich biodiversity of natural forests. The fact that a district like Anuradhapura is a leader in both loss and gain points to a highly volatile landscape, where native forests are cleared for agriculture while new plantations are established elsewhere.

“Disturbed” Forests: The Hidden Crisis of Degradation

Perhaps the most critical finding for long-term forest health is the vast area of land classified as “disturbed.” This category identifies landscapes that experienced both a loss and a subsequent gain of tree cover during the analysis period. A staggering 534,000 hectares of Sri Lanka’s landscape falls into this category—more than double the area of outright loss.

This “disturbed” area represents a hidden crisis of forest degradation. These are forests caught in a cycle of clearing and regrowth, often due to practices like rotational logging or shifting cultivation. This constant disturbance prevents the forest from ever maturing, severely degrading soil quality, disrupting water cycles, and diminishing its ability to support wildlife. While these areas may still have trees, they are ecologically impoverished and function as a shadow of a healthy forest. This finding shows that the pressure on Sri Lanka’s forests is far greater than what is captured by deforestation figures alone.

The Path Forward: Recommendations for a Sustainable Future

The findings of this analysis present a stark warning, but they also provide a clear evidence base to guide a more effective and targeted approach to forest conservation. The following policy recommendations are crucial for reversing Sri Lanka’s unsustainable trajectory.

Bridge the Gap Between Farming and Forests

Since permanent agriculture is the dominant driver of deforestation, conservation policy must be inextricably linked with agricultural policy. The primary goal should be to decouple food production from forest clearing. This can be achieved by promoting sustainable agricultural intensification—helping farmers increase yields on their existing land through better technology, irrigation, and agro-ecological practices, thereby reducing the economic pressure to expand into forested areas.

Target Efforts Where They Matter Most

Conservation resources are limited and should be directed to where the threat is greatest. The identification of Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, and Vavuniya as deforestation hotspots allows for spatially targeted interventions. Efforts should be focused here on strengthening land-use planning, enhancing the enforcement of environmental laws, and working with local communities to develop sustainable livelihoods that do not depend on forest clearing.

Tackle the Hidden Crisis of Degradation

Policies must look beyond preventing outright deforestation and address the widespread issue of forest degradation. This means developing programs to restore the half-million hectares of “disturbed” forest. Promoting community forest management, providing alternatives to shifting cultivation, and creating incentives for the restoration of native species are critical steps to help these damaged ecosystems recover.

Conclusion

This analysis confirms that Sri Lanka is losing its forests at an alarming rate, driven primarily by agricultural expansion and compounded by widespread degradation. However, the data also provides the clarity needed for decisive action. By integrating agricultural and conservation policies, targeting interventions in hotspot regions, and addressing the root causes of forest degradation, it is possible to shift from a path of loss to one of recovery.

To support this, further on-the-ground research is needed to validate these findings and better understand the local socio-economic drivers at play. The future of Sri Lanka’s unique natural heritage depends on leveraging this knowledge to make evidence-based decisions that secure the future of both its people and its forests.

by Nipun Ranasinhe- Marga Institute



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics

Published

on

President Donald Trump meets President Xi Jinping in Beijing: Mutually beneficial ties aimed at. (CNN)

The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.

To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.

For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.

At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.

This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.

Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.

On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.

The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’

Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.

There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.

Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’

Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’

It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.

One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.

Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.

Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.

Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.

China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.

Continue Reading

Features

The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order

Published

on

Xi and Trump

“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”

— Henry Kissinger

That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.

The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.

Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.

The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.

My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”

Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.

Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.

Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.

Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.

For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.

If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.

Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.

India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.

In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.

Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.

What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.

This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.

Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.

Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.

Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.

History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.

The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

Continue Reading

Features

Egypt … here I come

Published

on

Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage

Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._

I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:

1. Tell me something about yourself?

I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.

2. What made you decide to be a model?

Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.

3. What sets you apart from other models?

I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.

4. What clothing do you prefer to model?

I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.

5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?

Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.

6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.

7. School?

I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.

8. Happiest moment?

One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!

9. Your idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.

10. Your ideal guy?

My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.

11. Which living person do you most admire?

I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.

12. Your most treasured possession?

My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.

13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?

I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.

14. Your most embarrassing moment?

I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.

15. Done anything daring?

Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.

16. Your ideal vacation?

My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.

17. What kind of music are you into?

I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.

18. Favourite radio station?

Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.

19. Favourite TV station?

At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.

20. Any major plans for the future?

My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.

Continue Reading

Trending