The role of protected areas in climate change mitigation and
adaptation in developing countries such as Sri Lanka
Sanjay Kalpage1, John Merson1 and Daniel Robinson1
1
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Abstract: Small developing countries such as Sri Lanka are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts,
despitetheirminimal contribution to global carbon emissions. Moreover, the poor within these countrieswill
be impacted disproportionately, posing issues of social justice and equity. Since Sri Lanka has allocated over
20% of its land area to its protected area (PA) network, the country has a tremendous opportunity to utilise
these areas to reduce these impacts, especially on ecosystems and the services they provide.This paper
explores how developing countries such as Sri Lanka can integrate their PAs in their climate change
adaptation strategies while benefiting from international mitigation efforts. An estimate of the potential
benefits from a group of PAs in the south-east of Sri Lanka provides a practical example of the concepts
discussed. Finally, current deficiencies in Sri Lanka’s PA network that will impede the realisation of these
benefits are discussed along with potential solutions.
Keywords:Climate change, protected areas, Sri Lanka, REDD.
1. Introduction
In the coming decades climate change is expected to causeincreased flooding, droughts and sea level
rise, which in turn will negatively impact food and water resources, human health, industry and settlements,
and most of the planet’s ecosystems[1].Developing countries areexpected tobe affected
disproportionately,since they are already warmer on average than developed nations and are heavily
dependent on agriculture, which is extremely sensitive to climate change[1-3].The poorest people within
these countries are likely to face severe threats to their livelihoods as their access to quality health-care and
public services is limited, and their low incomes and meagre resources make adaptation to climate change
particularly difficult[4].
Like many other small developing nations, Sri Lanka is extremely vulnerable to climate change
impactsdespiteitsminimal contribution to global carbon emissions1[5]. Given evidence of increased
temperature levels and changes in rainfall patterns, the Sri Lankan government has recognised that climate
change could exacerbate existing social and economic issues[6]. For example, increased frequency and
intensity of natural hazards such as droughts floods and landslides are damaging infrastructure, crops and
livelihoods; vector borne diseasesare spreading rapidly; and the country’s natural resources such as water
bodies and forests— which are already under stress due to an expanding human population—are facing new
threats [7]. As the Sri Lankan government refines its recently developed Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy—which is still a work in progress—it has opportunities to utilise the country’s extensive protected
area (PA) network to reduce the impacts of climate change [8].
In this paper we explore how developing countries such as Sri Lanka can better utilise their PAs in
climate change adaptation and mitigation. First, we outline the role PAs are playing in global efforts to
reduce climate change impacts. We then explore the potential for Sri Lanka to utilise its PA network to play
a similar role, using a specific example to illustrate these concepts. Finally, we identify deficiencies in Sri
Lanka’s PA network that will impede the realisation of these benefits, and discuss potential solutions.
2. The role of protected areas in reducing the impacts of climate change
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a PA as a “clearly defined
geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve
Sri Lanka falls into the UNFCCC and IPCC’s category of ‘vulnerable’ small island nations under serious threat from various
climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and severe floods and droughts [5].
1
the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [9].The global
PA network covers almost 14% of the earth’s surface [8], makingPAs one of the most significant forms of
human land use on the planet [8, 10].Much of the ‘nature’contained within the global PA network is
threatened by climate change. Warmer temperatures are likely to drive species from reserves, leaving some
PAs with different species compositions and habitat types they were designed to protect [11]. The
biodiversity within PAs could be subjected to severe stresses as invasive and pest species that are better
adapted to the new climate move in, causing disease outbreaks and severe competition for resources[12].
These issues could be compounded by higher incidences of fire and floods caused by climate change[1].
Despite their vulnerability to the effects of climate change, however, the natural ecosystems contained
in PAs can make significant contributions to both climate change mitigation and adaptation.They can
contribute to climate change adaption by helping reduce impacts of climate change-induced natural disasters
such as floods, landslides, hurricanes, tidal waves and storm surges. For example, the Bangladeshi
government has recognised that the extensive mangrove system known as the Sundarbansprotects several
communities from otherwise devastating tropical cyclones, resulting in benefits of about half a billion dollars
of avoided costs [13]. In Switzerland, 17% of forests are protected to reduce landslides and avalanches,
providing services worth over US$3 billion annually [8].PAs can also contribute to climate change
adaptation by maintaining ecosystem services that help people cope with negative impacts of climate change
on water supplies, fisheries and agricultural productivity [8]. For example, about a third of the world’s
largest cities already obtain a significant proportion of their drinking water directly from PAs[8].Several
studies have shown that marine PAs help fish populations recover from climate change effects and overfishing [14-16]. Many PAs also help conserve wild relatives of commonly cultivated crops which could
contribute to the development of crops adapted to changes in weather patterns and increased disease and
pests resulting from climate change[8, 17].
PAs can also play a role in climate change mitigation, because ecosystems, especially forests, contain
huge stores of carbon. According to one estimate, the world’s forests and forest soils alone currently store
more than 1 trillion tonnes of carbon, twice the amount floating free in the atmosphere [18]. Consequently,
deforestation and forest loss are key drivers of climate change—according to IPCC estimates, these two
factors together account for about 17% of global carbon emissions. Given these findings, policymakers are
trying to establish an international Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme
to reduce rates of forest change in developing countries [19]. Under this mechanism, nations that struggle to
meet their emissions targets could buy carbon credits from other countries, which either have no emissions
target—as is currently the case for developing nations under the Kyoto Protocol2—or have reduced their
emissions below their agreed target [20]. Given the high cost of reducing carbon emissions within their own
countries, wealthy industrial nations could find it attractive to invest in initiatives to slow deforestation in
developing countries [20]. Individual companies may also decide to buy carbon credits based on such a
scheme [21]. Although the details of REDD are still being worked out, several multilateral and bilateral
funds already support the development of REDD strategies and demonstration activities in developing
countries [19]. These include the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UN-REDD
programme, and schemes of countries like Norway, Germany and the UK [19]. The scope of REDD has been
expanded during recent negotiations to include sustainable management of forests and conservation and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks—the name ‘‘REDD+’’ is now used to reflect this [22].A significant
portion of the carbon stored in the earth’s ecosystems lies within the global PA network—of a global store of
about 2,000 giga tonnes of terrestrial carbon, about 15% per cent lies within PA boundaries [23, 24]. These
vast stores of carbon have significant value, in the emerging market for carbon. For example, PAs in Bolivia,
Mexico and Venezuela together contain around 25 million hectares of forests which are believed to store
more than 4 billion tonnes of carbon, estimated to be worth between US$39 and US$87 billion in terms of
global damage costs avoided [25].
Compared to other land-use and resource management systems, PAs are in a unique position to
contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation[8]. They are usually based on a commitment to the
2
The current international regime to reduce global carbon emissions, which has binding targets for industrialized countries
long-termmanagement of the species and ecosystems they contain[26]. They usually have clear borders and
are managed by governance frameworks comprising both national legislation and international treaties such
as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Heritage Convention [27]. These in turn, often
require management plans, funding mechanisms, and systems of monitoring, verification and reporting[28].
While not all PAs are well-managed, those that are “can provide a cost-effective option for implementing
climate change response strategies because start-up costs have already been met and socio-economic costs
are offset by other services that PAs supply”[8].In the next section we explore the potential for a developing
country such as Sri Lanka to use its PA network for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
3. The potential use of Sri Lanka’s PA network in its climate change strategy
Sri Lanka has an extensive PA network. About 16% of its total land area is set aside as national parks,
nature reserves and sanctuaries under the jurisdiction of the Department of Wildlife Conservation[29].
However, additional areas managed by the Forest Department3bring the country’s total PA network to about
21% of its land area4[29, 31]. This figure is high compared to that of other countries in the region—Sri
Lanka is fourth among 23 Asian countries5. The corresponding percentages for India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh are 5, 10 and 2 [31].
Sri Lanka’s PA network provides a number of essential ecosystem services that can contribute to climate
change adaptation. For example the Peak Wilderness Sanctuary protects the water sheds of three major river
systems6[32]. The cloud forests ofRitigala Strict Natural Reserve facilitate precipitation in the dry season and
protect the watershed of Uma Oya, one of the major tributaries of the Mahaweli Ganga, Sri Lanka’s longest
river and a mainstay of its irrigation network[33].During the 2004 Tsunami, at Hikkaduwa where the reefs
are protected in a marine park, waves were only 2-3 m high and reached only 50 m inland, while in nearby
Peraliya, they were 10 m in height and reached 1.5 km inland[34]. There were no deaths in Hikkaduwa while
1,700 people died in Peraliya due the derailment of a train, which was carried 50 m inland [34]. The IUCN
calculated that the Muthurajawela Marsh, which is protected by two reserves, provides ecosystem services
worth over US$7 million per year,including about US$4.5 million of flood attenuation services[35].
Sri Lanka’s contribution to climate change is minimal. Its 2007 CO2 emissions were 12 million tons
compared to 1.6 billion tons from India[36]. Even when per capita emissions are considered, Sri Lanka’s
figure of 0.6 tons per person is much lower than the South Asian and world averages of 1.2 and 4.6
respectively[36]. However, the country can use its considerable forest cover—estimated at about 31%7—to
benefit from international REDD and REDD+ mitigation schemes[38]. According a recent calculation, about
64 million tons of carbon is stored in these forests [37], which in turn is equivalent to a CO2 mass of about
236 million tons [39]. Although prices for carbon offsets vary widely, this store of carbon would be worth
about US$35 billion ata price of US$15 per CO2 ton equivalent8[40]. Although stored carbon cannot be
equated to ‘carbon not emitted’, this calculation gives an indication of the potential value of the carbon
contained in Sri Lanka’s forests [24]. Since Sri Lanka’s PA network contains roughly 70% of the habitats
covered in the above calculation9, we estimate that these areas contain a CO2 mass of about 165 million tons,
worth about USD 25 billion.
We now illustrate the potential role of Sri Lanka’s PAs in both climate change adaptation and mitigation
by using the specific example of thesouth-east Sri Lanka which contains several important PAs. These
include the world-famous Ruhunu National Park (popularly known as Yala), andBundala and Kumana
National Parks which have been designated Wetlands of International Importance under the
3
For example, those designated as National Heritage Wilderness Areas and International Biosphere Reserves
While this figure is used from the UNEP-WCMC database since it contains comparative numbers across countries, according to
data from Sri Lanka’s Department of Census and Statistics, the implied number is about 25% [30].
5Brunei (44%), Bhutan (28%) and Cambodia (26%) are first, second, and third respectively [31]
6 The Kelani, Kalu and Walawerivers
7 This comprises about 24% of closed canopy forest and 7% of sparse forest. However, exact estimates vary among sources, and this
number can be smaller due to deforestation since the last comprehensive survey was done in 1999 [37].
8 This was the average price of calculated in a 2010 study of carbon offset prices [40].
9 As noted previously, Sri Lanka’s PA network covers between 21 and 25 percent of the land area of the country.
4
RamsarConvention on Wetlands[41-43].Our analysis also covers Lunugamvehera National Park and four
Sanctuaries10—Kataragama, Katagamuwa, Nimalawa,Weerawila).
We made arough estimate of the potential of these PAs to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate change
adaptation, using the data and analysis contained in a World Bank report onecosystems in the country’s
southern province11[44]. Our results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: The potential of PAs in south-eastern Sri Lanka to contribute to climate change
adaptation
PA (or PA component)
Types of services included
Estimate of value
(US$ million/ year)
Yala National Park
Flood control, storm protection provided by
mangroves, watershed protection, increased
fisheries from fisheries management area
0.5
Water
bodies
such
as Watershed services, water for domestic use of
KirindiOya and Weerawila tank locals
3.2
Bundala National Park
Watershed protection, services provided by
wetlands
3.1
Lunugamvehera National Park
Watershed protection, water for local use
provided by Lunugamvehera reservoir
11.7
Total
18.5
The total benefit of US$ 18.5 million per year presented in Table 3 is probably an underestimate given
the difficulties in estimating all components of ecosystem services as well as the conservative assumptions
used in the calculation[44]. Moreover, these benefits are important for equity reasons because many of the
people who derive these benefits are from lower income groups[45].
The PAs in south-eastern Sri Lanka can also contribute to international climate change mitigation efforts
through the significant quantities of carbon stored within their habitats. We estimated this carbon
sequestration potential using GIS data obtained from Survey Department of Sri Lanka. First, using the landuse layer, we obtained the area of different types of habitats contained within the PAs. We then used
available estimates of carbon contentper hectare in each habitat-type to arrive at the total carbon contained in
each habitat type[37].Our results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Carbon stocks contained within PAs in south-eastern Sri Lanka
Habitat type
Extent
(ha)
Above ground +
below ground
biomass (tons/ha)
Carbon in
live biomass
(tons/ha)
Carbon
stocks ('000
tons)
Forest (dense)
49,786
75.6
35.6
1,769.9
Forest (other)
116,167
50.4
23.7
2,753.2
684
40.0
18.8
12.9
Scrub
19,132
40.0
18.8
359.8
Marsh
1,203
33.6
15.8
19.0
Chena/ homesteads/ cultivated
8,809
66.8
31.4
121.8
Abandoned tanks/ paddy fields
4,821
16.8
7.9
38.1
20,276
-
-
-
220,878
323
152
5,075
Grassland
Other (water bodies, rock, sand, salt pans)
Total
Limited ‘traditional’ human activities are allowed in Sanctuaries, but not in National Parks
The World Bank study estimated the provisioning (e.g. food, water), regulating (e.g. watershed protecting), supporting and cultural
services provided by ecosystems in the province. We selected those elements related to our chosen PAs that are relevant for climate
change adaptation—i.e. we selected most of the provisioning, regulating and supporting services, but left out cultural services.
10
11
The total of 5 million tons of carbon presented in Table 2 is equivalent to 18.6 million tons of CO212,
worth about US$ 128 million assuming a price of US$15 per ton.
4. Deficiencies in Sri Lanka’s protected area network and potential solutions
Although Sri Lanka could use its PA system for climate change adaptation and mitigation, it needs to
address several issues in order to do this. These include protected area coverage and management, equity and
social justice and preparation for climate change adaptation and REDD. We now take each of these in turn
and explore possible solutions.
Although Sri Lanka has dedicated a relatively large area to conservation, some important areas
containing endemic biodiversity—especially in the wet zone in the country’s southwest—lie outside its PA
network[46]. Moreover, these areas contain rainforests that sequester several times the carbon content of the
dry monsoon forests found in mostexisting PAs[37].WhilePAcoverage should be enhanced, it will be
difficult to set aside more land as conventional PAs since reserves already cover a significant portion of the
country, and there is intense competition for land13. Therefore the government should explore newPA
modelsand governance options to increase the portion of the country’s ecosystems that are managed in a
manner that maintains their functionality [37]. For example it should consider involving local communities
and the private sector in PA management based on the various community forestry projects being piloted by
development agencies14 and the experience of countries such as South Africa15. Since Sri Lankan PAs will
face threats due to climate change16, the government should link PAs into land use planning and management
systems at the landscape level to help sustain ecosystem functions and resilience [8]. Park management plans
should be revised to include actions to address potential climate change impacts, and the potential role of
these PAs in Sri Lanka’s climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy should be recognised explicitly
and steps taken to enhance their capabilities in this regard17.
It has been estimated about 30% of Sri Lanka’s rural population—which in turn comprises over 70% of
the country’s total population—depend at least partly on forest resources for their livelihoods[48]. An even
larger proportion of peopledepend on environmental services provided by forests such as watershed
protection and flood retention, and have already been severely affected by deforestation and the impacts of
climate change on forests[33, 45]. Although their carbon emissions are minimal, the rural poorare especially
vulnerable “due to the dependence of their livelihoods on climate sensitive natural resources and their weak
social protection structures” [45]. Therefore, usingSri Lanka’s PA network as part of a climate change
adaptation strategy will be important for reasons of equity and social justice. The benefits to the poor can be
enhanced by setting aside part of the income derived from REDD schemes to explicitly address the impacts
of climate change on this group of people. Steps should also be taken to ensure that local communities
benefit more from PAs and the ecosystem services they provide18.
Although Sri Lanka’s Climate Change Secretariat has prepared a National Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy,the government still needs to develop detailed plans and implement them. The role of the PA
network within the overall strategy should be clarified.Despite some preliminary studies, data on the REDD
potential of the country’s habitat types is still rudimentary; steps should be taken to fill these gaps. A
clearplan to derive benefits from emerging international REDD schemesis required. The UN-REDD Sri
Lanka programme being developed jointly by the Forest Department and UNDP19 is a step in the right
direction.
5. Conclusions
12Conversion
of carbon to the equivalent mass of gaseous CO2done bymultiplying carbon mass by the factor 3.6667[39]
At 326 people per km2, Sri Lanka is one of the most densely populated countries in Asia [37]
14 The World Bank and USAID have funded projects in the past; an AusAID project is currently being implemented [37].
15 In South Africa the total area of privately managed PAs is larger than that managed by SANParks, the national park agency [47]
16 For the reasons described in section 2
17 However, conservation of biodiversity and habitats will remain their main objective
18For example allowing more customary use, and exploring co-management options with communities where possible.
19United Nations Development Programme
13
Like many other developing countries, Sri Lanka is extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts,
although its contribution to global carbon emissions is minimal. However, since it has allocated over 20% of
its total land area to its PA network, Sri Lanka has a tremendous opportunity to utilise these areas to reduce
these impacts, especially on its poorest citizens. The country also should enhance its sustainable
development efforts by using its PAs to benefit from international initiatives to mitigate climate change.In
order to do this, however, the Sri Lankan government must take steps to improve its PA coverage and
management, ensure that its poorest and most vulnerable citizens are explicitly included within a
comprehensive climate change strategy, and position itself to take advantage of an emerging international
REDD framework. These steps will be crucial, since climate change is expected to reduce the resilience of
Sri Lanka’s PAs, compromise its unique biodiversity and impede the delivery of the myriad ecosystem
services they deliver to its people, especially those who are most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
6. References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate change 2007: synthesis report, 2007, IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland.
O' Brien, G., P. O' Keefe, H. Meena, J. Rose, and L. Wilson, Climate adaptation from a poverty perspective.
Climate Policy, 2008. 8: p. 194–201.
Skoufias, E., M. Rabassa, S. Olivieri, and M. Brahmbhatt, The Poverty Impacts of Climate Change, 2011,
World Bank: Washington DC.
Stern, N., Stern Review: the economics of climate change, 2006, HM Treasury: London, UK.
Yamane, A., Rethinking Vulnerability to Climate Change in Sri Lanka, in 9th International conference on Sri
Lanka Studies2003: Matara, Sri Lanka. p. 20.
De Costa, W.A.J.M., Climate change in Sri Lanka: myth or reality? Evidence from long-term meteorological
data. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 2008. 36(Special Issue).
Climate Change Secretariat Sri Lanka, National climate change adaptation strategy for Sri Lanka 2011 to
2016, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Editor 2010, Government of Sri Lanka: Colombo
Dudley, N., S. Stolton, A. Belokurov, L. Krueger, N. Lopoukhine, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith, and N.
Sekhran, Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change, 2010, The World Bank
and WWF: Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and New York, USA.
Dudley, N., Guidelines for applying protected area management categories, ed. N. Dudley2008, Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. x, 86 p.
Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding, and I. Lysenko, Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas
as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society BBiological Sciences, 2005. 360(1454): p. 443-455.
Hannah, L., Protected Areas and Climate Change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008.
1134(The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2008): p. 201-212.
Mansourian, S., A. Belokurov, and P.J. Stephenson, The role of forest protected areas in adaptation to climate
change. Unasylva, 2009. 60(231): p. 63-68.
Abramovitz, J., T. Banuri, P.O. Girot, B. Orlando, N. Schneider, E. Spanger-Siegfried, J. Switzer, and A.
Hammill, Adapting to Climate Change: Natural Resource Management and Vulnerability Reduction, 2002,
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Kaunda-Arara, B. and G.A. Rose, Effects of marine reef National Parks on fishery CPUE in coastal Kenya.
Biological Conservation, 2004. 118: p. 1-13.
Stobart, B., R. Warwick, C. González, S. Mallol, D. Díaz, O. Reñones, and R. Goñi, Long-term and spillover
effects of a marine protected area on an exploited fish community. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 2009. 384:
p. 47–60.
Goñi, R., S. Adlerstein, D. Alvarez-Berastegui, A. Forcada, O. Reñones, G. Criquet, S. Polti, G. Cadiou, C.
Valle, P. Lenfant, P. Bonhomme, A. Pérez-Ruzafa, J.L. Sánchez-Lizaso, J.A. García-Charton, G. Bernard, V.
Stelzenmüller, and S. Planes, Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from
artisanal fisheries. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 2008. 366: p. 159–174.
Meilleur, B.A. and T. Hodgkin, In situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and trends. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13, 2004. 13: p. 663–684.
Hoogeveen, H., Forests and climate change: from complex problem to integrated solution. UN Chronicle,
2007(2): p. 36-46.
Corbera, E. and H. Schroeder, Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy,
2011(14): p. 89-99.
Laurance, W.F., A new initiative to use carbon trading for tropical forest conservation. Biotropica, 2007.
39(1): p. 20-24.
The CarbonNeutral Company, The business case for REDD, 2010.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
Grainger, A. and M. Obersteiner, A framework for structuring the global forest monitoring landscape in the
REDD+ era. Environmental Science and Policy, 2010(14): p. 127 - 139.
UNEP-WCMC, State of the world’s protected areas: an annual review of global conservation progress2008,
Cambridge.: UNEP-WCMC.
Campbell, A., L. Miles, I. Lysenko, H. Gibbs, and A. Hughes, Carbon storage in protected areas: Technical
report., 2008, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Emerton, L. and L. Pabon-Zamora, Valuing Nature: Why Protected Areas Matter for Economic and Human
Wellbeing, 2009, The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA.
Barber, C.V., K.R. Miller, and M. Boness, eds. Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global Change: Issues
and Strategies. 2004, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 236.
Badman, T. and B. Bomhard, World Heritage and Protected Areas, 2008, IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. p. 22.
Hockings, M., Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas. BioScience, 2003.
53(9): p. 823-832.
Climate Change Secretariat Sri Lanka, Sector Vulnerability Profile: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services,
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Editor 2010, Government of Sri Lanka: Colombo
Department of Census and Statistics, Statistical Abstract 2010. 46 ed2011, Colombo: Government of Sri
Lanka.
UNEP-WCMC, National Protected Areas Statistics for 1990-2010 from the 2011 MDG analysis, 2011:
http://www.wdpa.org/Statistics.aspx.
de Alwis, S.M.D.A.U., P.N. Dayawansa, R. How, B.M.P. Singhakumara, D. Weerakoon, and M. Wijesinghe,
Biodiversity Baseline Survey: Peak Wilderness Sanctuary, M.J.B. Green, Editor 2007, Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources: Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Environmental Foundation Limited, Hakgala Strict Natural Reserve: is forest loss drying up our water, 2005,
Environmental Foundation Limited: Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Fernando, H.J.S., S.G. Mendis, J.L. McCulley, and K. Perera, Coral poaching worsens tsunami destruction in
Sri Lanka. EOS, 2005. 86(33): p. 301, 304.
Emerton, L. and L.D.C.B. Kekulandala, Assessment of the Economic Value of Muthurajawela Wetland, 2003,
IUCN, Sri Lanka: Colombo.
World Bank, The World Bank Data Catalog, The World Bank Group, Editor 2011: http://data.worldbank.org/.
Chokkalingam, U. and S.A. Vanniarachchy, Sri Lanka’s REDD+ Potential: Myth or Reality? Forest Carbon
Asia Country Profile Report No. 1: Sri Lanka, 2011: http://www.forestcarbonasia.org.
Ratnayake, J., M. Abeykoon, and Y. Chemin, District-wise forest area variation in Sri Lanka from 1992 to
2001 for supporting the National Physical Planning Policy, 2002, Government of Sri Lanka: Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
Anke, H., G.C. Zeri, J. Dietz, A. Freibauer, M. Hüttner, M. Jung, D. Mollicone, and M. Scheffler, Emissions
and removals from land-use, land use change and forestry activities in a post-Kyoto regime – quantitative
analysis of a framework for reducing deforestation, 2008, German Federal Environmental Agency: Berlin,
Germany.
Clarke, M., The over-the-counter market for forest carbon offsets: an insight into pricing in a market without
common price signals. Australian Forestry 2010. 73(3): p. 171–176.
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Park visitor data 2010, 2011.
Wetlands International. Ramsar Sites Information Service. 2010 [cited 2011; Available from:
http://ramsar.wetlands.org/.
Jazeel, T., ‘Nature’, nationhood and the poetics of meaning in Ruhuna (Yala) National Park, Sri Lanka.
Cultural Geographies, 2005. 12: p. 199-227.
World Bank, Valuation of Environmental Services in Sri Lanka: A case study of agriculture and watershed
benefits in the Southern Province, 2009. p. 42.
Practical Action, Promoting adaptation to climate change in Sri Lanka, Undated, Practical Action: UK.
Jayasooriya, A.H.M., D. Kitchener, and M.B. Chadrashekar, Portfolio of Strategic Conservation Sites/
Protected Area Gap Analayis in Sri Lanka, 2006, Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources: Colombo.
Child, B., Private conservation in Southern Africa: practice and emerging principles, in Evolution and
innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas, H. Suich, B.
Child, and A. Spenceley, Editors. 2009, Earthscan: London; Sterling, VA. p. xvii, 462 p.
Bandaratillake, H.M., Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests: Sri Lanka in Forests out of
bounds: impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific, P.B. Durst, T.R.
Waggener, T. Enters, and T.L. Cheng, Editors. 2001, FAO: Bangkok, Thailand.