The purpose of this investigation
Conservation is measured in outcomes, not announcements.
The quarter brought encouraging government commitments and a few tangible projects. It also exposed a recurring failure in Sri Lankan elephant conservation: the announcement is often more visible than the implementation. Three elephant corridors were described as opened. A new village electric fence was celebrated. A railway warning system received formal backing. A mobile veterinary hospital was promised. Each deserves serious attention. None should be counted as a proven conservation outcome until the relevant legal, engineering, operational and biological evidence is available.
Saving Ganesh has long worked alongside Sri Lankan wildlife veterinarians and field rangers and has advocated hanging-wire electric fencing as a practical way to protect people without forcing elephants into confinement. That experience shapes the questions in this report. It does not replace field measurements. We recognise the work of government teams, communities and researchers, while asking all implementers to report what their projects actually achieve.
This report examines news announced during 1 July to 30 September 2026. A few material developments reported in October are expressly labelled as follow-ups, so later progress is not retrospectively attributed to the third quarter.
EXECUTIVE SNAPSHOT
The quarter at a glance
Four much-publicised developments—and the proof still needed to establish their value to elephants and communities.
Elephant corridors
Documented progress
June Cabinet approval and July claim of three gazetted, opened routes
Evidence still needed
Publish the exact gazette notices and maps; demonstrate cleared access and enforcement
Community fencing
Documented progress
A July village fence was completed near Uga Ulagalla
Evidence still needed
Disclose design choices and track breaches, crop losses and full lifecycle costs
Railway protection
Documented progress
September MoU and prior technical tests
Evidence still needed
Commission the pilot, measure missed alerts and driver response, then publish results
Veterinary care
Documented progress
August restatement of mobile-hospital plan first announced in 2025
Evidence still needed
Finish and equip the unit, fund support staff and establish an actual launch date
Navigate the report
Inside this investigationChoose a topic to jump down this page.
Elephant deaths and human–elephant conflict
Three elephant corridors
Hambantota Managed Elephant Reserve
Fencing: hanging-wire versus horizontal
Elephant–train collision technology
Emergency veterinary care
Recommendations and accountability
Sources and references
The scale of the emergency
By 21 August, DWC data cited publicly showed 207 wild-elephant deaths and 88 human deaths during 2026 to that date. The department said conflict was declining relative to 2025, but the public summary did not provide a like-for-like monthly comparison or cause-specific series with which readers could verify that trend. These are year-to-date counts, not deaths confined to July through September. 1
A government statement released in June put the minimum count from the 2024 elephant survey at 7,451, compared with 5,879 reported in 2011. Survey-method differences and the fact that a population estimate can rise while lethal conflict remains severe should prevent simplistic claims that the situation is improving. A higher population figure does not erase individual deaths, shrinking corridors or loss of habitat. 2
Deaths from shootings, explosive bait and illegal live wires remain a distinct crisis from non-lethal, carefully regulated electric-fence deterrence. Our recommendations for improved fencing do not include dangerous, illegally electrified barriers.
SECTION 02 / 08
Three elephant corridors announced and the questions that remain
On 6 July, the government announced that Koholankala, Handapanagala and Wetahirakanda had been formally declared and opened, referring to gazette notifications. The news sounded decisive. But the Cabinet Office decision dated 1 June 2026 records approval of concrete future actions rather than proof that all legal and ground-level steps were complete. 3, 4
What Cabinet actually approved
Handapanagala in Monaragala: declare the migration route from Handapanagala toward Yala National Park, via the Menik River at Demodara, as a sanctuary under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. The Monaragala District Coordination Committee had approved the route identification. 3
Wetahirakanda: the corridor area was already recognised as a wildlife sanctuary in 2002. The 2026 proposal concerned re-declaration of the Watahira Kanda area as a forest gateway and providing alternative land for holders of five existing land permits inside the nature reserve. It is misleading to treat this as a wholly new elephant route discovered and opened in July. 3
Koholankala in Hambantota: Cabinet approved acquiring properties and buildings obstructing the route, paying compensation, and declaring the relevant section connected to the Hambantota Managed Elephant Reserve as a sanctuary. Approval to acquire land is not evidence that compensation, transfer of possession or removal of barriers had already occurred. 3
The distinction is a legal and conservation issue. Cabinet approval, a final Gazette Extraordinary, land acquisition and actual passage by elephants are separate milestones. We could verify the Cabinet decision and the government statements but did not locate the specific 2026 Gazette Extraordinary numbers and maps for these three final corridor designations in the official material reviewed. This is an evidence gap, not proof that the notices do not exist.
DWC and the Environment Ministry should publish the gazette number and date for each route, a survey-grade map, records of each affected parcel and compensation, any remaining physical obstructions, and annual monitoring of elephant movement and conflict in adjacent villages. The headline should be revised to a verified legal and field status, rather than repeated as a completed achievement.
SECTION 03 / 08
Hambantota is the warning from recent history
The Hambantota Managed Elephant Reserve demonstrates why this scrutiny is necessary. The southern development drive built an international airport, port, industrial infrastructure, highways and settlements across landscapes used by elephants. Earlier accounts estimated roughly 400 to 500 elephants in the affected managed-range landscape. That is an estimate of elephants associated with the area, not evidence that 500 elephants were all relocated or killed. Their movement corridors and safety were profoundly affected by land conversion. 7, 27
The reserve was gazetted on 9 April 2021 as Extraordinary Gazette 2222/62, after years of pressure from residents and conservationists. Its legal creation was real, but it did not deliver the intended management on the ground. In May 2026, the Environment Minister acknowledged that the reserve had yet to become fully operational; regulations were published on 30 January 2026 under Gazette 2473/26 and a management committee was proposed. That is a significant delay between declaration and practical protection. 5, 6, 8
A 2026 peer-reviewed study of the Walsapugala area, based on 113 participants in eight focus groups, described the reserve as not yet enforced and documented farmer concerns about illegal quarrying, encroachment, land-use decisions and continued elephant movement into settlements. It also reported continuing pressure from development, including solar projects. This is qualitative evidence about institutions and lived experience, not a census of elephant losses. 7
The lesson for the newly announced corridors is specific: legal boundaries require funded management, lawful resolution of land claims, habitat continuity and accountability for activities inside protected land. If Koholankala is to reconnect habitat near Hambantota, it cannot repeat the sequence of announcement, gazette and years of non-enforcement.
SECTION 04 / 08
A new community fence and a serious engineering question
On 15 July 2026, Uga Resorts, local farming families and the Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR) opened a community electric fence near Uga Ulagalla at Earu Wewa in Anuradhapura. The project was announced as five kilometres, covering 65 farming families and about 132 acres. A contemporaneous report gave 4.5 kilometres. We would welcome an as-built measurement to resolve the discrepancy. 9, 10
The published investment was approximately LKR 4.5 million, including more than LKR 3.175 million from Uga and roughly LKR 1.3245 million from villagers. Community participation is a constructive feature. The partners also described an earlier community fence installed near Pittala Konderama and Karambe in 2023. But funding, construction and ribbon-cutting do not provide a before-and-after dataset on elephant incursions or crop losses. 9
The fence in a published photograph appears to be a conventional installation with horizontal electrified strands, not the freely suspended vertical hanging-wire screen Saving Ganesh has promoted. Photographs alone do not establish every engineering detail, so the partners should release an as-built plan, energizer specifications, protection of corner and end posts, and a maintenance schedule. 10
Why hanging wires deserve a formal comparison
Elephants are exceptionally capable of learning to defeat fixed barriers. Conventional fences can be breached by pushing or pulling posts, using trunks and forefeet, toppling material onto wires or exploiting unguarded openings. A Sri Lankan camera-trap study of the Udawalawe National Park perimeter documented 3,097 photographed crossing events over a 605-day monitoring period, including fence-post manipulation and use of an open gate. Because that was a protected-area perimeter rather than a carefully managed village exclosure, the result cannot be transferred directly to the Earu Wewa project; it does show why post vulnerability, fence placement and elephant behaviour matter. 14
In hanging-wire designs, electrified vertical wires hang from a high line and swing rather than forming a rigid lower framework an elephant can readily dismantle. The configuration can make the supporting structure less accessible and reduce damage when a fence is touched or pushed. A 2021 publication from India’s Project Elephant and Wildlife Institute of India reported more than 36 months without a reported elephant crossing or fence damage at the cited Sri Lankan installation and 18 months of similarly favourable reported experience in Kodagu, India. The same account stressed reliable voltage, vegetation clearance and maintenance. These are promising case histories, not a guarantee of 100 percent success at every location. 12
CCR’s own electric-fencing guide acknowledges that a hanging-wire guard in front of a conventional ground fence, combined with mesh-protected posts, would be very difficult for elephants to break. The guide also argues that increased design complexity can bring extra expense and technical maintenance needs. That is a genuine design trade-off that should be tested empirically, not treated as settled by either side. 11
A 2023 University of Peradeniya study examined 60 privately owned electric fences in Sri Lanka, using both hanging-screen and regular configurations. Owners reported no human-elephant conflict incidents after installation, although some fences malfunctioned. The study supports properly maintained protection of individual properties, but its aggregated results do not establish a controlled superiority of one design over the other. It provides indicative historical installation costs, not a verified ten-year comparison for the July 2026 community project. 13
Saving Ganesh has documented and advocated hanging-wire approaches for years. We believe they warrant much wider testing, especially where elephants repeatedly damage posts or where uninterrupted movement beneath a hanging screen matters for other species or permitted human activity. We are not dismissing the value of community-managed horizontal exclosures: CCR has also published evidence of effective seasonal fences when correctly located and maintained. The question is whether a stronger configuration might protect the Earu Wewa households more reliably over the full service life of the investment.
The standard should be equal protection
Commercial facilities routinely evaluate perimeter infrastructure against costly consequences of failure. Families whose farms and homes lie beside elephant range deserve equivalent attention to performance and reliability. A low construction bid may become expensive after repeated repairs, night patrols, crop losses and personal danger. Conversely, a complex fence that cannot be maintained may also fail. Both cases argue for transparent total-cost and real-world outcome comparisons.
We therefore ask CCR, Uga Resorts, DWC and independent engineers to compare conventional horizontal, hanging-screen and hybrid designs at representative sites. Publish installation costs, annual maintenance, electrical uptime, breaches, crop damage, animal injuries, repair time, community costs and impacts on elephant movement. Explain which supplier or implementing party is paid under each arrangement. That request is about public accountability and evidence; it makes no allegation of improper conduct by any individual.
An October parliamentary disclosure put the country’s elephant-related electric fencing at 5,787.89 kilometres and reported LKR 618.89 million spent during 2025 on fencing and associated construction, equipment, guard huts, maintenance and Civil Security support. These national figures cover more than wire alone and are not a direct budget for the Earu Wewa scheme. They show the scale of the public resources at stake and the case for consistent outcome auditing. 15
SECTION 05 / 08
Elephant train collision technology moves toward a pilot
On 1 September 2026, Sri Lanka signed a memorandum of understanding for a three-year early-warning project involving Sri Lanka Railways, DWC, the Forest Department, the Clean Sri Lanka programme and funding from People’s Bank. The system is intended to alert train drivers before they reach elephants near the tracks, especially around bends that defeat a locomotive-mounted camera’s line of sight. 16
The proposed Rail Elephant Accident Prevention System (REAPS) combines trackside infrared beams, ground-vibration sensors, acoustic inputs, radar and thermal sensing with local processing, LoRa radio links, trackside signal lights and an in-cab warning display. The project identifies Sri Lankan engineer and elephant conservationist Irosh Perera as the designer, with SRA Group providing engineering support. We found no evidence that the complete system was procured from an Indian company. Individual sensor components may have international origins, but their manufacturers have not been comprehensively disclosed. 17, 18
This is not an invention that appeared overnight. The project documents an early demonstration at Pinnawala in 2016, a trackside trial near Settikulam in 2017–2018, and an updated Pinnawala prototype test in July 2025. That last test included local electronics, low-power communications and small display units. It does not establish that every advanced sensor or planned colour display has been field-validated. 18
The national announcement described 39 high-risk locations across about 89 km, with 13 systems for the first phase and a proposed 14-km Habarana–Hataraskotuwa pilot. The developer’s more recent site describes a funded deployment of 39 km in three 13-km phases, five selected priority sites, and first-phase planning still under way. These may refer to different planning scopes, but project partners should reconcile the numbers. 17, 18
A September railway interview confirmed that the provider had permission to begin testing and that installation was starting. The Railways General Manager said the department would only accept the system for operational use after examining supporting performance data. As of this review, we could not verify a commissioned 13-site warning network or an independently documented collision prevented by REAPS. The project’s public TrackWatch demonstration itself warns that its displayed operating metrics are simulated. 18, 19
The trial must report true elephant detections, missed detections, false alarms, radio and power reliability, warning time, train speed, braking or stopping responses, and actual collision outcomes. Otherwise, “technology installed” will become another headline without a measured safety benefit. This project is worth supporting because the engineering problem is real; it is too early to pronounce it a success.
SECTION 06 / 08
Emergency veterinary care should strengthen the teams already in the field
In August, the Environment Ministry again announced a dedicated mobile veterinary hospital service for injured and sick wild elephants. That description risks overlooking the DWC doctors and rangers who already travel extraordinary distances to treat free-ranging animals, conduct veterinary assessments, administer drugs, immobilise elephants when necessary and monitor recovery. Saving Ganesh has observed and worked alongside this demanding field-response system. 21
The plan is not entirely new. The Environment Minister proposed a wildlife hospital and mobile medical unit in July 2025, following the shooting of the tusker Bhathiya. The August 2026 statement did not identify new veterinarians, operational vehicles, diagnostic equipment or a launch date. 20, 21
OCTOBER UPDATE · OUTSIDE THE JULY–SEPTEMBER QUARTER
October follow-up: government reporting identified Ulukkulama near Anuradhapura as the intended base for the first mobile elephant hospital. On 20 October, the Minister told Parliament that preparations were 90 percent complete, vehicles were being adapted and equipment purchased. He also said land had been allocated at Ulukkulama for a fixed veterinary hospital, with a concept paper and government approval. Those are credible reported preparation steps, but they are not confirmation that the mobile hospital has treated its first case. 22, 23
The more urgent constraint may be people. Former DWC Director of Wildlife Health Dr Tharaka Prasad described approximately nine wildlife veterinary stations, some operating with only one doctor and one vehicle. He suggested that a functioning station should have two veterinarians, eight support staff and two vehicles. In August, reporting put the DWC at roughly 15 field veterinarians and two headquarters veterinarians. These reported counts are time-specific and should not be presented as a current verified personnel roll. 24, 25
Wildlife veterinarians began a work-to-rule campaign in July, citing long-standing deficiencies in allowances, career progression and supporting personnel. By 17 August, the Environment Ministry was seeking assistance from military veterinary officers for emergencies outside normal working hours. The response exposed a staffing and service-continuity problem that a new van, by itself, cannot fix. 25, 26
A genuinely upgraded mobile hospital might carry portable diagnostic imaging, essential field laboratory tests, monitored anaesthesia capability, safe drug storage and emergency stabilisation equipment. No public equipment inventory reviewed establishes which of these capabilities is actually being installed. The department should publish that inventory, the number of adapted vehicles, staffing rosters, 24-hour dispatch arrangements, service areas, safety protocols and response-time data. Protecting an animal and its treatment team requires the whole service, not merely a vehicle.
SECTION 07 / 08
What we ask agencies and project partners to publish
Corridor law and maps: gazette numbers, survey maps, compensation records and dates when physical obstructions were removed at each of the three announced corridors.
Hambantota field enforcement: a funded management plan, independent record of illegal uses and habitat loss, and evidence of elephant passage through the reserve.
Village fence specifications: as-built drawings of the Earu Wewa fence, correct length, energizer performance, post protection and a site-specific maintenance plan.
Fence technology comparison: independent trials of horizontal, hanging and combined designs, including total costs and outcomes over more than one cultivation cycle.
Procurement transparency: basic disclosures of budgets, suppliers, implementing-party fees and maintenance obligations for publicly promoted conservation infrastructure.
Railway pilot data: numbers of installed and commissioned sites, detection results, false alerts, warning lead time and the actual response by train crews.
Veterinary staffing and facilities: the mobile hospital vehicle count, purchased equipment, operational date, additional technical staff and a plan to fill regional vacancies.
Independent reporting: annual information on elephant deaths by cause, human fatalities, crop losses and mitigation outcomes with consistent definitions and geographic detail.
Our position
We support the protection of traditional movement routes, locally owned crop protection, railway detection technology and stronger emergency veterinary facilities. Every one of these initiatives can help elephants and people. But communities should be able to see what was constructed, where it works, where it fails and who is responsible for improvements.
For years, Saving Ganesh has asked for better protection that reflects how elephants actually behave. The evidence for hanging-wire and hybrid fencing is substantial enough to justify serious, transparent testing; it does not justify pretending one technology works everywhere or accusing conservation colleagues of motives we cannot document. Likewise, an official corridor boundary and a hospital announcement are only the beginning of practical conservation.
The next measure of progress should be straightforward: elephants moving safely through protected habitat, fewer families losing crops and sleep, fewer animals struck by trains, and better equipped veterinary teams able to reach injured elephants when time matters. We welcome partners who will help measure those outcomes and improve the projects that fall short.
A Call for Conservation Accountability
Saving Ganesh welcomes genuine progress toward protecting Sri Lanka's elephants. But announcements, Cabinet approvals, new technologies, and conservation funding must ultimately be judged by measurable results.
We call for transparent implementation of elephant habitat protections, independent evaluation of fencing technologies, effective safeguards along dangerous railway corridors, and adequate resources for the wildlife veterinarians and rangers already working on the front lines.
Our purpose is not to assign blame, but to encourage practical, scientifically informed solutions that protect both elephants and the communities sharing their landscapes.
The measure of successful conservation is not what has been promised, but what has actually been achieved.
SECTION 08 / 08
Sources and further reading
Numbered citations refer to the sources below. Where information comes from a government or project announcement, we distinguish its claim from independently demonstrated results. October items are used only as later follow-ups.
DWC casualty figures to 21 August 2026 reported by The Morning, 8 September 2026↗
Cabinet Office decision of 1 June 2026 on the three elephant corridors↗
July 2026 government claim that the three elephant corridors were gazetted and opened↗
Gazette Extraordinary 2222/62 of 9 April 2021 declaring the Hambantota Managed Elephant Reserve↗
Sri Lankan government 2026 Gazette index including Gazette Extraordinary 2473/26 of 30 January↗
Environment Minister on delayed operation of Hambantota reserve, The Morning, 19 May 2026↗
Uga Resorts second community fencing project announcement, Daily Mirror, 1 August 2026↗
Earu Wewa fence report and photograph, Travel Weekly, 28 July 2026↗
Centre for Conservation and Research guide to village and agricultural electric fences, 2020↗
India Project Elephant and Wildlife Institute of India, Trumpet, July to September 2021↗
Samaranayake and colleagues, Private Electric Fences, Gajah 56, 2023↗
Ranjeewa and colleagues, How Did the Elephant Cross the Fence, Animal Conservation, online 2024↗
Sri Lanka Parliament statement on national fencing mileage and expenditure, 22 October 2026↗
Sri Lankan government announcement of rail elephant prevention MoU, 2 September 2026↗
People’s Bank project and engineer identification in Daily FT, September 2026↗
Rail Elephant Accident Prevention System development and deployment homepage↗
Environment Ministry statement about mobile hospital, Daily Mirror, 11 August 2026↗
Sri Lankan government notice naming Ulukkulama for the mobile elephant hospital, 4 October 2026↗
Former DWC veterinary director on staffing and vehicle shortages, The Sunday Morning, 10 May 2026↗
DWC veterinary staffing and work to rule campaign, The Sunday Times, 1 August 2026↗
Military veterinarians to support DWC emergency treatment, News First, 17 August 2026↗
2026 study of Hambantota development and elephant habitat in Mongabay, April 2026↗
National protected-area elephant fence crossing study technical abstract↗
The measure of progress
“Elephants moving safely, families protected, fewer railway deaths, and veterinary teams equipped to respond.”
Saving Ganesh · Sri Lanka Elephant Conservation Quarterly Report
↓ Download the nine-page report (PDF)
Saving Ganesh · Quarterly Elephant Conservation Report · July–September 2026 · Research reviewed 2 November 2026