Features
Mannar Wind Farm Project: Another folly like the Sinharaja Logging Project on the horizon?
By Prof. Emeritus Nimal Gunatilleke,
University of Peradeniya
A wind farm consisting of 30 towers generating 100MW (Phase 1- Thambapavani) was established on the southern coast of Mannar Island in 2020, with financial assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The widespread criticism of this project due to its positioning within one of the main bird migratory corridors in the Asian region (detailed elsewhere in the article) was largely overlooked or ignored due to the economic priorities that prevailed at the time, as it happened with the now infamous Canadian-funded Sinharaja Mechanized Logging Project of the 1970s.
During Sri Lanka’s worst health and economic crises in recent times, the billionaire Indian businessman Gautham Adani visited Sri Lanka and met the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa followed by a visit to the proposed renewable energy project site in Mannar on a Sri Lankan Air Force Helicopter. Subsequently, the Ministry of Power and Energy, Sri Lanka agreed to receive an unsolicited proposal for awarding the construction and operation of the Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase-II) and another in Pooneryn to Adani Green Energy Sri Lanka Ltd., (AGESL), as Build, Own, and Operate (BOO) projects for a period of 25 years for an approximate Investment of USD 500 Million.
The proposed Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase-II) has a capacity of 250 MW and comprises 52 wind turbines of 5.2 MW capacity each. These are to be placed in parallel with the existing Thambapavani wind farm spreading across most parts of Mannar Island. The project is expected to generate 1048 GWh of Energy annually. The Annual Energy Production (AEP) of the proposed wind farm is around 6% of the country’s energy requirement.
Ecological Significance of the Mannar Island
Mannar Island and other islands on the Gulf of Mannar spanning India and Sri Lanka have been identified as being some of the most important migratory corridors and a Critical Wintering Site for bird species in the Central Asian Flyway. The ecological significance of Mannar and the wider Gulf of Mannar for the Central Asian Flyway is recognised by Birdlife International (Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and Key Biodiversity Area), Wetlands International (Critical Site Network 2.0), and the Ramsar Convention (Vankalei Sanctuary is a Ramsar Wetland), as well as by the Government of Sri Lanka, which has declared three Protected Areas covering Mannar’s key wetlands, namely, Adam’s Bridge National Park, Vankalei Sanctuary, and the Vidataltivu Nature Reserve. Mannar also provides breeding habitats for eight species of seabirds, many of which are listed as Critically Endangered (CR) in the national Red List of Threatened Species. Sri Lanka, being a signatory nation to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has committed to safeguarding these migratory species.
We have a global responsibility and binding to protect about 15 million birds (of 250 species) visiting Sri Lanka from over 30 countries. Mannar alone gets about a million birds representing 150 species. There are clear evidence-based reports that Mannar Island provides overwintering ground and breeding habitats for numerous seabirds, water birds, and forest birds, some of which are classified as Critically Endangered in Sri Lanka’s national Red List of Threatened Species.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and its Deficiencies
The EIA for this proposed 250 MW Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase II) was submitted to the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority in January 2024 by the Consulting Engineers & Architects (Pvt) Ltd. It was then made open for public review for 30 working days from 23.01.2024 to 06.03.2024 and is currently available on the web. (03.115.26.10/2023/EIA/Mannar%20Wind%20Power%20Project%20Phase%20II%20EIA%20Final%20-%20English.pdf).
Public opinion is beginning to appear in mass media about the conduct as well as on the findings of the EIA since it was made available on the web creating headlines, raising eyebrows, and causing much controversy. Public comments received during this period have now been collated and submitted by the CEA to the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority (SLSEA) for technical assessment and response. The CEA is expected in turn to undertake a technical review of the project’s environmental conformity under the National Environment Act.
This project reminds us of the controversies generated during the Sinharaja Logging Project around the 1970s where an overambitious project proposal prepared by the State Timber Corporation proposed to selectively log the Sinharaja Forest Reserve and the surrounding forests for the supply of peeler logs for the manufacture of plywood. This supply of plywood would be used for making tea chests to facilitate the export of tea – a mainstay of the Sri Lankan economy. The strong public opinion mounted within as well as outside the country against this logging project compelled the then Government to appoint a ministerial committee to report on the veracity of the public criticism and make recommendations on the continuation of the project.
The George Rajapaksa Committee reported that the logging project was unsuitable for the fragile terrain leading to excessive environmental (including biodiversity) damage, and insignificant benefits to local people, gross overestimate of its timber potential leading to literally creaming off Sinharaja and other forests in a 20-year vicious cycle. This project became an election issue at the 1977 general election and with the change of Governments, one of the first things that the newly elected prime minister did was to suspend the Sinharaja Logging Project. Interestingly enough, there are several parallels between the Sinharaja logging project and this wind power project which I intend to refer to at appropriate places.
In this review, I intend to bring together different viewpoints expressed by environmentalists, scientists, and some energy experts alike and suggest a way forward in addressing this environment/energy conundrum.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental activists solidly backed by evidence-based scientific information are intensifying their campaign against the proposed Adani wind farm in the Mannar Island. They have accused the Sri Lankan political parties of having ignored the disastrous environmental, social, and economic implications of the Adani wind farm to be established in Mannar.
According to environmental critics, this newly proposed Wind Power Project (Phase II) poses an even greater risk to the Mannar region than the Phase I Thambapavani project. Fifty-two (52) huge wind turbines are to be spread across most of the island, covering the entire northern half that is lodged among the most important migratory corridors for species in the Central Asian Flyway viz. Adam’s Bridge National Park, Vankalei Sanctuary (a Ramsar Wetland Site), and the Vidataltivu Nature Reserve (Figure 2).
Among the critics of the international conservation agencies, Martin Harper, Chief Executive Officer, BirdLife International writing to HE the President of Sri Lanka says, “Your wonderful country is situated at the southernmost tip of the Indian Subcontinent in the Central Asian Flyway, serving as a crucial over-wintering ground for an estimated 15 million birds, representing 250 species, migrating across 30 countries, from the Russian Far East to eastern Europe through South Asia. Sri Lanka, being a signatory nation to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has committed to safeguarding these migratory species.”
Martin Harper goes on to say in his three-page letter to President Ranil Wickremesinghe that BirdLife International along with FOGSL and their colleagues in the research community stands ready to support Sri Lanka’s energy sector in identifying nature-safe siting options so that Sri Lanka can meet its energy needs in an ecologically sensitive manner.
The EIA report, according to critics, fails to adequately address the project’s impact on migratory birds due to factors such as:
Inadequate timing and seasonality of bird observations, outdated methodologies used, negligence regarding international conventions and scientific literature, and the proposed project’s location neglects alternative sites with high wind energy potential and lower ecological impact:
It is clear that the potential ecological and economic repercussions of the project extend beyond Mannar Island, affecting bird tourism across Sri Lanka and hindering its burgeoning eco-tourism prospects while posing a great risk to migrants of the Central Asian Flyway.
The narrow ‘movement corridor’ (marked as a yellow band in the map given in the EIA Report) for millions of migratory birds proposed by the EIA seems highly arbitrary and lacks support from currently available information in the EIA report, itself. The corridor is proposed conveniently away from the proposed wind farm based apparently on – no study and no data!
Chris Goodie, Chairman of the Oriental Bird Club, urges a comprehensive review of the project and careful adjustment of the project location and requests the Sri Lankan government to identify ecologically safe zones for such renewable energy projects, guided by Strategic Ecological Assessments (SEA) and globally available tools like AVISTEP (The Avian Sensitivity Tool for Energy Planning). This would ensure that Sri Lanka would meet its vital energy demand while safeguarding its critical birdlife and, more importantly, without compromising the ecological and economic benefits for the citizens of the country.
Rohan Pethiyagoda, an internationally renowned biologist and a leading environmental activist in Sri Lanka, claims that the government must have an open and transparent bidding process for projects of this magnitude. The EIA doesn’t provide a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis or any rational evaluation of alternative sites. In terms of the EIA process, it is incumbent on the proponent to demonstrate that they have looked at alternative sites and selected the one with the lowest impact. As it stands, he slams the EIA as just a whitewash.
Pethiyagoda goes on to argue that the EIA is obliged to consider sites at which the impact could be lower, but it has failed to do so. For example, he reasons out why this project cannot be located in a nearby less environmentally sensitive location such as Seelavatturai, Kondachchi, Arippu, or even Kalpitiya. “Where is the cost-benefit analysis, or the evaluation of alternative sites?” he asks. Multiple sites need to be evaluated and choose the one with the lowest environmental impact and greatest socio-economic benefits.
Likewise, the senior environmental lawyer Dr. Jagath Gunawardana also stresses this deficiency of the EIA. According to him, “In our preliminary observations, we have found that they have not adhered to the basic requirements of an EIA, not having looked at alternatives to the project in a meaningful manner as required under Section 33 of the National Environment Act. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CLEAR CAUSE OF LEGAL ACTION AVAILABLE TO ANY PARTY IN SRI LANKA.”
He goes on to say that the Sustainable Energy Authority had prepared a document on wind-power generation, where they had identified locations in seven districts as areas with high potential for wind-power generation and Mannar is not one of them. The island of Mannar has areas that have medium and lower potential. Ironically, the area is claimed to have valuable mineral resources and nearby offshore gas and oil fields of proven economic value.
It is quite clear from the above critiques that the ecological repercussions as a direct result of these ad hoc developments in Mannar are expected to severely impact the region’s economy and the potential for wildlife-based tourism planned by the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority and Northern Development Framework as it happened with the Sinharaja Logging Project in the 1970s.
The energy experts counterargue that since Mannar already has an existing wind power plant (Thambapavani) which was established after a thorough vetting process of an EIA, preparing an EIA for the second phase of the project is only a formality and that there ideally shouldn’t be any concerns since the EIA of the first phase of the project has given green light to the establishing of wind power plants in Mannar.
However, the environmental impacts pointed out by knowledgeable people have largely been ignored in the Thambapawani (Phase I) project EIA. Any lessons learned since its implementation have been overlooked in the AGESL (Phase II) project EIA although it claims that certain negative impacts on the local environment, and mitigation measures to overcome them were identified for the EIA study and valued (P 17-EIA Summary).
Moreover, the proposed project’s location neglects alternative sites with high wind energy potential and lower ecological impact with a satisfactory benefit-cost analysis.
(To be continued )
Features
Quandary of Dengue: Some roving perspectives
Sri Lanka is currently well and truly trapped in the strangling grip of a devastating and severely enhanced dengue outbreak. The numbers alone are staggering; over 44,000 cases have been recorded across the island so far this year, with the highest concentration systematically suffocating the Western, Southern, and Central provinces. Hospitals and healthcare providers are under extreme pressure, but the cold metrics of morbidity do not capture the true implications and dismay of this current wave. What has profoundly shaken the public consciousness and even sent a shudder through the medical community is a grim shift in the implications for the populace.
Dengue has always been quite a threat, looming over our Motherland from time to time. Yet for all that, historically, child deaths due to the virus were relatively rare in Sri Lanka, thanks to scrupulously adhering to robust clinical guidelines, as well as exceptional paediatric monitoring and management. This year, that safety net seems to be straining quite a bit at the edges and among the reported fatalities are a tragic number of children. The virus is moving faster, hitting harder, and exposing a terrifying reality, even stressing that our existing defence mechanisms are perhaps no longer totally sufficient to deal with the problem.
In response, public health authorities have deployed their traditional arsenal. Teams are busy with intensive surveillance, conducting house-to-house inspections, enforcing strict penalties for standing and stagnant water, and sending fogging machinery through the streets to blanket neighbourhoods in chemical mists. Yet, as case counts climb by nearly 50% week over week, an uncomfortable question must be asked: Are these traditional measures sufficient, or are they bordering on an exercise in futility?
The Illusion of the Fog: Why Our Current Strategy May Be Failing?
To understand why Sri Lanka might be in a tight corner, one must look closely at the enemy. Dengue is transmitted primarily by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a highly adapted, urbanised insect. While Aedes aegypti is widely considered the primary culprit, Aedes albopictus (commonly known as the Asian tiger mosquito) plays a massive, highly dangerous role in Sri Lanka’s dengue transmission as well. In fact, the interplay between these two species is one of the biggest reasons why controlling dengue on the island is so incredibly difficult. These two vectors behave differently, breed in different places, and require distinct strategies to combat their well-recognised roles in the propagation of the disease that is dengue. Understanding how these two mosquito species split the territory could explain why a single controlling method might not always work across the board.
Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are strictly urban and indoor creatures. They live alongside humans inside houses, apartments, and in heavily built-up commercial areas. They rest on dark clothes in closets, under furniture, and behind curtains. They breed in artificial containers, clear, stagnant water in flower vases, plastic cups, concrete sumps, and overhead tanks. They prefer human blood almost exclusively and bite multiple people to get one full meal, thereby spreading the dengue virus rapidly within even a single household.
In contrast, Aedes albopictus is semi-urban and rural, thrives in vegetations, gardens, rubber plantations, and peri-urban areas where green spaces meet houses. The creature rests in shaded bushes, high grass, and low canopy foliage, as well as holes in trees, leaf axils, coconut shells, discarded tyres and trash. The biting behaviour of these mosquitoes is opportunistic. They bite humans but also feed on birds and domestic mammals, indicating that they can survive easily even when human density is low.
The traditional responses we rely on, most notably thermal fogging, are largely cosmetic public relations exercises rather than a totally effective vector control mechanism. Such fogging misses indoor resting sites, drives resistance, and stagnant water elimination fails against cryptic, microscopic breeding sites.
Fogging utilises “adulticides“, chemical sprays meant to kill flying mosquitoes. However, Aedes aegypti is a domestic creature; it rests indoors, hidden in the dark recesses of closets, under beds, and behind curtains. A fogging process achieves very little penetration into these indoor sanctuaries. Furthermore, over-reliance on these pyrethroid-based chemical sprays has accelerated insecticide resistance, effectively rendering the chemicals useless over time.
Similarly, while the National Dengue Control Unit (NDCU), to their eternal credit, aggressively pursues the elimination of visible standing water, the sheer adaptability of the mosquito outpaces manual human labour in trying to eliminate the breeding places of the vectors. Aedes eggs can remain dormant in dry containers for months, hatching the moment a drop of water touches them. In dense, urbanised areas like Colombo and Gampaha, microscopic breeding sites, from the rim of a discarded plastic bottle cap to the base of an indoor potted plant, are impossible to completely police.
If we continue to rely solely on manual cleaning and chemical fogging, we are fighting a twenty-first-century climate-driven crisis with mid-twentieth-century tools. We must look beyond our borders to see how global science is shifting the paradigm of mosquito control.
The Biological Frontier: Insects fighting Mosquitoes
When searching for international alternatives, many look towards the United States, where vector control districts manage complex mosquito populations across diverse ecosystems. A common point of curiosity is the historical use of “mosquito-eating insects.”
In the US, biological control has long featured predatory species. While some point to insects like dragonfly nymphs or giant non-biting mosquito larvae (Toxorhynchites, which actively prey on other mosquito larvae), the most widely used traditional biological agent in American municipal water systems is actually the Gambusia affinis, commonly known as the “mosquitofish.” A single one of these surface-feeding fish can devour hundreds of mosquito larvae a day.
However, American vector management has largely evolved past simply dumping predatory fish into ponds. The true modern frontier in global mosquito control relies on advanced biological and genetic interventions that turn the mosquitoes against themselves.
1. The Wolbachia Revolution
Perhaps the most successful international intervention against dengue is the introduction of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes. Wolbachia is a naturally occurring bacterium found in up to sixty per cent of all insect species, but crucially, not naturally present in Aedes aegypti.
When scientists introduce Wolbachia into Aedes mosquitoes in a laboratory and release them into the wild, two extraordinary things happen: –
· Viral Suppression: The bacterium competes with viruses like dengue, Zika, and chikungunya inside the mosquito’s body, making it incredibly difficult for the virus to replicate. If the virus cannot replicate, the mosquito cannot transmit it to a human.
· Population Replacement:
Through a mechanism called cytoplasmic incompatibility, when a Wolbachia-carrying male mates with a wild female that does not carry the bacteria, her eggs do not hatch. If a Wolbachia female mates with a wild male, her offspring will carry the bacteria. Over time, the local mosquito population is entirely replaced by harmless, non-transmission-capable mosquitoes.
In comprehensive global trials, such as those conducted by the World Mosquito Programme in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, the introduction of Wolbachia mosquitoes led to a staggering 77% reduction in dengue incidence and an 86% reduction in dengue-related hospitalisations.
2. Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) and Genetic Modifications
Other countries, including parts of the US (such as the Florida Keys) and Brazil, have turned to genetic engineering. Using the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) or advanced genetic variants (like those developed by Oxitec), millions of bio-engineered male mosquitoes are released into the wild. Because male mosquitoes do not bite humans, and they feed exclusively on nectar, thereby posing zero risk to the public. These males mate with wild females, but pass on a self-limiting gene that causes the female offspring to die in the larval stage before they can ever mature, bite, or transmit disease. This results in a drastic collapse of the localised vector population without the use of even a single drop of toxic chemical pesticide.
Moving beyond the Status Quo: A Blueprint for Sri Lanka
The current dilemma in Sri Lanka is a classical gridlock: we are deploying immense physical effort and economic capital into vector control measures that yield diminishing returns, while our clinical wards fill with critically ill patients. If we are to break this cycle, our public health policy must undergo a rapid structural evolution
We cannot instantly replicate the multimillion-dollar genetic laboratories of the West, but we can modernise our strategy immediately by adopting a highly targeted, multi-tiered approach.
Comprehensive Vector Management Strategy
The following are some thoughts that need to be carefully evaluated in a venture towards getting things under control.
· Shift from Adulticides to Target Microbial Larvicides Immediate Phase
Cease the reliance on sweeping chemical thermal fogging. Instead, deploy specialised microbial larvicides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Bti is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that, when ingested by mosquito larvae, destroys their digestive tracts. It is completely non-toxic to humans, pets, and other aquatic life, and can be distributed via localised backpack sprayers or drones into inaccessible urban sumps.
· Scale Up Localised Wolbachia Trials Intermediate Phase
Sri Lanka has previously initiated small-scale, localised pilot releases of Wolbachia mosquitoes in select urban pockets. Given the severity of the 2026 outbreak, these programmes must be aggressively scaled up into an industrial-level national initiative. Public-private partnerships must be leveraged to establish sustainable, high-capacity mosquito-rearing facilities locally.
· Implement Digital Ovitrap Surveillance Continuous Integration
Replace manual, retroactive searching with predictive digital mapping. Deploy networks of smart “ovitraps” (oviposition traps) across high-burden provinces. These traps monitor egg-laying rates in real-time, allowing automated data systems to predict a spike in the adult mosquito population weeks before an actual clinical outbreak occurs, enabling preventative targeting.
The Cost of Inaction
Maintaining our current trajectory is not a neutral choice; it is an endorsement of escalating mortality. The 2026 outbreak has proven that the ecological dynamics of dengue have changed, fuelled by changing weather patterns and urban density. Our public health response must change with it.
The heart-breaking loss of young lives in this current surge must serve as a stark wake-up call. We must look at the international landscape, embrace the biological innovations that have saved lives across the globe, and transition from a policy of panic-driven reaction to one of scientific eradication. It is no longer just a matter of cleaning our drains; it is a matter of upgrading our science.
Why Aedes albopictus Makes the Sri Lankan Crisis Harder
In Sri Lanka, the geographic landscape transitions quickly from dense concrete cities to lush, tropical vegetation. This creates the perfect environment for both species to thrive simultaneously.
· The Surveillance Blindspot: When health authorities focus heavily on checking indoor water storage and concrete drains in cities, they can completely miss the massive Aedes albopictus populations breeding in the surrounding vegetation, suburban gardens, and rural homesteads of the Southern and Central provinces.
· The Failure of Indoor Fogging:
While indoor residual spraying or targeted indoor fogging might hit Aedes aegypti, it has virtually no effect on Aedes albopictus, which spends its life cycle outdoors in the bushes.
· Climate Resilience:
Aedes albopictus eggs are remarkably tolerant of colder temperatures and varied environments. This allows the vector to push higher into the mountainous terrains of the Central Province, bringing dengue to areas that historically saw very few cases.
To truly bring down the case numbers in a severely enhanced outbreak, public health interventions must be dual-targeted: addressing the indoor, urban threat of Aedes aegypti while simultaneously tackling the outdoor, ecological stronghold of Aedes albopictus. We cannot sit back on our laurels of the past. We need to move forward resolutely.
Features
ANURADHAPURA ANTHEM c.1893
R. W. Ievers, who wrote this poem, was the Government Agent of the North Central Province during 1884, 1886, and 1890. He is the author of the Manual of the North Central Province (1899) and a half dozen published reports on the life and practices in the Province. Before his death, he shared it with his good friend H.C.P. Bell, the Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon at the time. In 1917, Bell had it published in the Times of Ceylon – Christmas Number. Since then, it remained unknown for 109 years, until Ievers’s great-grandson, Turtle Bunbury, historian and author of Living in Sri Lanka (2006) with James Fennell, tipped me off about its source – H.C.P. Bell: Archaeologist of Ceylon and the Maldives (1993), written by Bell’s granddaughters Bethia N. Bell and Heather M. Bell.
THE ANTHEM
Anuradhapura! City grand and vast,
Lanka’s famous Capital, in ages of the past:
In the Mahawansa the story has been told
Of thy palaces, and temples, and pinnacles of gold.
Hail! then hail! to the worth of a bygone day,
Hail! all hail! to the relics of kingly sway
Hail to thee, Fair City, glorious in decay,
Hail! thrice hail! Forever and for aye!
Si monumentum quaeris
– cast your gaze around
Ruined fanes and dagobas everywhere abound
Alas! for glory faded, for erstwhile beauty sped
For hierarchs and heroes, long numbered with the dead
Hail! then hail!…
Great Ruwanaveli Seya, once fairest of the fair,
The splendour of thy palmy days has melted into air;
And like Imperial Caesar now ‘dead and turned into clay’,
Thy sacred bricks ‘may stop a hole to keep the wind away.’
Note by Tillakaratne:
Since 1873, Bhikku Naranvita Sumanasara has been doing conservation work on this stupa. In 1876, Governor William Gregory, after visiting the work site, wrote that its conservation was not just a religious work but a great National Monument.
See ‘Bayagiri’ massive – ‘Fearless Mount’ forsooth – Centre once of schism rank, from ‘Great Vihara’ truth.
Patched up by prison labour, anew it flaunts on high
A ‘hideous excrescence’ athwart a tranquil sky.
Note by H. C. P. Bell
: T. N. Christie, Planting Member at the time protested in the Legislative Council against the abortive “restoration” by prison labour of the Abhayagiri Dagaba, dubbing its truncated pinnacle, half restored, a “hideous excrescence”.
Jetawanarama, Great Sena’s priestly boon
Comely shape and giddy height will crumble all too soon;
Where forest trees and chequered shade a peaceful picture lend,
From cruel axe and ruthless spade, may gracious Heaven defend.
Note by H. C. P. Bell:
Two decades after these poems were written, the surrounding area of the Jetawanarama was still covered in forest, and the Atamasthana Committee conditionally allowed a monk to clear a limited number of trees. But not a tree remained unfelled, contrary to what the monk was authorized to do.
Thuparama graceful, in outline clear and bold,
Begirt with column chaste and slim, a gem in the ring of gold
To thee pertains high honour a pious people gave – The tomb of Sanghamitta, and Prince Mahinda’s grave.
Note by
H. C. P. Bell: The ruins are pointed out, wrongly, as the tradional tombs of Arahat Mahinda and Sanghamitta Theranee.
With bricks and mortar bolstered up, behold the Sacred Bo;
To some – misguided mortals – ‘tis but a ‘bo-gas’ show.
Where humble Mirisveti a monarch’s fad recalls,
Lo! Royal Siam’s silver now builds its futile walls.
Note by H. C. P. Bell:
According to Mahawansa, Mirisavetiya was so named after King Dutugemunu’s compunction at forgetting chillies (miris) in his alms giving to monks on one occasion. The restoration work on the Mirisavetiya began under the Ceylon Government, with funds provided by the King of Siam. When the money flow began to cease, work also ceased, and bats began to frequent the holed structure.
- Ruwanveli Seya in the background. Murage in the front c. 1900 From Sacred City of Anuradhapura (1908)
- Bhayagriya (Abhayagiriya) c. 1900 From: Sacred City of Anuradhapura (1908)
- Jetawanaramaya c. 1900. From Sacred City of Anuradhapura (1908)
What need to tell of sculptures, of ‘pokunas’ galore,
Of balustrades and Yogi stones and half a hundred more,
Of Brazen Palace spacious, with gilt-roofed storeys dight –
A modern race more ‘brazen’ would desecrate each site.
For midst these sacred ruins of shrines and cloistered hall,
A reckless generation disports with little balls,
Whilst ‘Parliamentary language’ and imprecations deep
Disturb the peaceful solitude where saintly Rahats sleep.
Note by H. C. P. Bell:
After European residents, old city Anuradhapura in the late 19th century, the area still being cleared between Ruwanveli Seya and Thuparama, was used a ‘golf links’. Ievers did not like the area used as a playground:
Iconoclasts and vandals have had their little day;
No more shall ancient pillars to culverts find their way.
No more a watchful Government such sacrilege condones –
One may not meddle with the gods, nor tamper with the stones.
Anuradhapura! Thy glory shall revive;
Yhu [sic] sons shall swarm within thee like bees about a hive.
The effort of the present for past neglect atones;
New breath of life resuscitates this vale of driest bones.
Composed by R. W. Ievers
(1850-1905)
Introduced by Lokubanda Tillakaratne
Features
Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation: Restoring Mobility, Dignity and Hope Across Sri Lanka
For thousands of Sri Lankans living with limb loss and physical disabilities, access to quality rehabilitation services remains a significant challenge. Yet, for more than three decades, our organisation has quietly transformed lives through innovation, compassion and community-based care. The Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited (MRFGL), supported by the Meththa Foundation-UK and in partnership with the Manitha Neyam Trust, the LEBARA Foundation and the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in Jaffna, emerged as one of Sri Lanka’s most effective voluntary rehabilitation service providers, restoring mobility, independence and dignity to some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.
The Foundation’s roots stretch back to 1994, when a group of expatriate Sri Lankan professionals in the United Kingdom recognised the severe shortage of rehabilitation services available to disabled persons in Sri Lanka. Drawing upon their expertise in rehabilitation medicine and allied healthcare professions, they established the Meththa Foundation-UK with a simple but powerful vision: to provide affordable, high-quality prosthetic and rehabilitation services to those who needed them most.
What began as an effort to recycle and repurpose high-quality prosthetic components donated by the UK’s National Health Service has evolved into a comprehensive rehabilitation network serving communities across the island.
Clinical services commenced in Sri Lanka in 1995 through a mobile outreach programme that initially supported injured soldiers and later expanded to civilians affected by conflict and disability. The majority of them were victims of land mines. In 2010, the Sri Lankan arm of the organisation was formally registered as the Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited, strengthening its ability to deliver sustainable services nationwide.
Today, the Foundation operates four modern rehabilitation centres located in Mahawa, Mankulam, Balapitiya and Kilinochchi. These centres provide prosthetic and orthotic services, posture and mobility support, limb repairs, and rehabilitation assistance to patients from diverse social and economic backgrounds.
Recognising that many disabled individuals live in remote areas with limited access to healthcare, Meththa Foundation also established a mobile outreach service in 2011. Through a successful “Hub and Spoke” model, rehabilitation teams travel regularly to underserved communities, ensuring that patients are not denied care simply because of distance or financial hardship.
The scale of the Foundation’s work is impressive. During 2025 alone, the organisation recorded approximately 2,000 patient contacts, including the provision of 350 new artificial limbs, 850 limb repairs and around 800 other rehabilitation devices. For many beneficiaries, these interventions represent far more than medical treatment; they offer a pathway back to employment, education and social participation.
Innovation has become a hallmark of the Foundation’s approach. Through an active research and development programme, MRFGL has developed affordable prosthetic technologies specifically suited to Sri Lankan conditions. Among its achievements is the development of a modular below-knee artificial limb system manufactured largely from locally sourced materials. The Foundation has also designed low-cost prosthetic knee components that significantly reduce the financial burden on patients while maintaining quality and functionality. These developments are funded by generous International Grants facilitated by affluent members of the Meththa Foundation-UK. Service users are encouraged to donate whatever they can but for those who cannot, which is a majority the services are entirely free.
These innovations not only make rehabilitation more affordable but also strengthen local manufacturing capabilities and reduce dependence on imported components.
Equally important is the Foundation’s commitment for building local expertise. Recognising the shortage of trained rehabilitation professionals in Sri Lanka, Meththa Foundation
established an apprentice-based vocational training programme that recruits and trains young people as prosthetists, orthotists and rehabilitation technicians. Several locally trained staff members are now employed across the Foundation’s centres, helping to create a sustainable workforce for the future.
The organisation’s work has attracted growing recognition within the healthcare sector. Discussions have already taken place with health authorities regarding the potential use of Meththa-designed prosthetic components within Government hospitals. Such collaboration could significantly expand access to affordable rehabilitation services throughout the country.
Beyond its clinical achievements, the Foundation’s impact is measured in restored confidence and renewed independence. Surveys conducted among beneficiaries indicate that many educated amputees successfully return to productive lives after receiving rehabilitation support. However, the findings also highlight an ongoing challenge among poorer and less educated amputees, many of whom struggle to access follow-up care due to transportation difficulties and financial constraints.
To address this issue, the organisation hopes to -expand its mobile services and community outreach programmes. Additional funding would allow rehabilitation teams to reach isolated communities more frequently, ensuring that vulnerable patients continue to receive the support they need.
Operating on an annual expenditure of approximately Rs. 30 million in Sri Lanka, supplemented by overseas fundraising and donations, the Foundation remains heavily reliant on the partnership of charitable trusts such as the Manitha Neyam Trust and LEBARA Foundation and generosity of individual well-wishers. Every contribution directly supports the provision of artificial limbs, mobility devices, training programmes and outreach services for those who might otherwise be left behind.
As Sri Lanka continues to strengthen its healthcare and social welfare systems, organisations such as the Meththa Foundation demonstrate how innovation, volunteerism and dedication can create lasting social
By helping individuals regain mobility and independence, the Foundation is not merely providing artificial limbs—it is rebuilding lives and restoring hope.
For many “beneficiaries, every step they take is a testament to the life-changing work of the Meththa foundation
www.meththafoundation-sl-uk.org
Chairman’s WhatsApp contact number +94 77 788 6119
Prof S P Lamabadusurira, Chairman and Dr B Panagamuwa, ✍️
First Trustee
-
Features6 days agoNanda Pethiyagoda Wanasundara as three generations of family saw her
-
Features5 days agoSri Lanka developing independent hydrographic capabilities
-
Opinion4 days agoRanasinghe Premadasa: The man who would not take ‘No’ for an answer
-
Editorial6 days agoFuel crisis: Beyond price debate
-
Latest News6 days agoSooryavanshi thumps fastest List A fifty as India A win tri-series
-
News4 days agoUS Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs meets President
-
Business5 days agoUniversity of West London opens Sri Lanka’s first full UK university branch campus
-
Features6 days agoThe Sirisena – Ranil conflict and events leading to MR’s return as PM





