ENVIRONMENTAL LAW OF

SRI LANKA

MRS. FATIMA THALAYSINGAM

Consultant Legal Draftsman Department
Lecturer – Sri Lankan Law College
The Legislative Framework of Sri Lanka

The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

The Executive
The Judiciary
Pariament
Provincial Council

Acts of Parliament
……………………………..
Statutes of Provincial Councils
(Substantive Law)

……………………………………………..
Regulations Regulations
Order Orders
Rules Etc
By-Laws
Proclamations
(Subordinate or Subsidiary Law)
• Environmental Law
The definition of Environment
The National Environmental Act No. 47 of
1980 defines the word “ environment” as
follows:-
“ environment” means the physical factors of
the surroundings of human beings including
the land, soil, water atmosphere, climate,
• sound, odours, tastes and the biological
factors of animals and plants of every
description.
• This definition can be given a broad
meaningful interpretation to include “ man
and his surroundings”.
• This includes the following:-
• physical or non-living (air, water, soil)
• biotic component (plants, animal reptiles)
• social component (people and what the
have created – infrastructure facilities,
culture economy etc.
• “God has created mother nature to fulfil
the needs of humankind and not to its
greed”. Mahathma Gandhi
• The branch of environmental law has
become necessary as environmental
problems are increasing both at national
and global level levels.
• .
• The include acid rain, climate change,
global warming, sea level rise and
depletion of the Ozone layer.
• Unchecked environmental degradation,
the consequent threats to the survival of
human, animal and plant life have
developed into a new area of law as
environmental law.
• Environmental law encompasses many
branches of the law such as Constitutional
law, administrative law, delict, property,
criminal law, international etc.
 Environmental law of Sri Lanka

Provisions relating to environment in the

Constitution of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka

Article 27 (14) of the Directive Principles of State

Policy states as follows:-

“ The State shall protect, preserve and improve

the environment for the benefit of the community.”

(
• Article 28 dealing with fundamental
duties states as follows:-

• The exercise and enjoyment of rights

and freedoms is inseparable from the
performance of duties and obligations,
and accordingly it is the duty of every
person in Sri Lanka –

•
• (a) to uphold and defend the Constitution
and the law;
• (b) to further the national interest and to
foster national unity;
• (c) to work conscientiously in his chosen
occupation;
• (d) to preserve and protect public
property, and to combat misuse and
• waste of public property;
• (e) to respect the rights and freedoms of
others; and
• (f) It is the duty of every person in Sri
Lanka to protect nature and its riches
Though the abovesaid provisions do not confer or
impose legal rights or obligations and are not
enforceable in any court or tribunal, nevertheless they
have been duly recognized by our courts. Article 29

The protection of environment is also referred to in the

Provincial Council list and the Concurrent list of the
Constitution - (Ninth Schedule.)

The National Environmental Act , the Regulations and

Orders made thereunder contain the main provisions
relating to the law of environment.
Important principals governing the protection of environment which have been
incorporated in many International Instruments such as U.N. Stockholm
Declaration, U.N Rio De Janerio Declaration etc.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They
are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall

constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered
in isolation from it.

Developmental needs and environmental concerns should be balanced in order

to achieve sustainable development.
• Precautionary Principle
• It is based on the approach that it is better to prevent
environmental degradation in the first place rather than allow it to
occur and then try to repair the damage.
• Measures should be taken to anticipate, prevent or minimise the
causes

• (Incorporated in the UN Climate Change Convention

• Convention on Biological Diversity)
• Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration –
• “In order to protect the environment the
precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost effective
measures to prevent environmental
• Degradation.”
• S.C of India in Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum V. Union of India, declared that the
• precautionary principle is an essential
feature of SD.
• In the Eppawala case the petitioners
allged that the environmental pollution
resulting from the said project will be
• Massive and irreversible and will render
the affected area unusable in the
foreseeable future. Waste products from
the large scale mining as envisaged by the
project include phospho-gypsum and other
radio active substances, while mining
operation will leave behind pits and gullies
which will cause severe health hazards.pg
285 & 286
• Polluter pays principle
• The person who pollutes must bear the
cost of doing so.
• In many instances the costs of the
pollution are directly or indirectly borne by
the State or the public rather than the
polluter.
• This principle tries to ensure that such
costs are ultimately borne by the polluter.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V Union of
India 1997 Vol 4(2) SAELR 90 – Action
was filed to stop tanneries in the State of
Tamil Nadu from discharging untreated
effluent into agricultural fields, waterways
and open lands. This caused 35,000
agricultural lands to be partially or totally
unfit for cultivation and 170 types of
chemicals used polluted the drinking
• Water. The Court stated that although the
leather industry was a major foreign
exchange earner in India and provided
employment the industry has no right to
destroy ecology degrade the environment
that creates health hazards. Co. was
ordered to pay compensation as well as to
pay for the past pollution it generated.
• MC Metha V Kamalnath & Others1997
(1)SCC 388 – In this case the course of
the river was diverted to save the motel
belonging to the Respondent from floods.
• He was ordered to pay the pollution cost.
Inter-generation Equity
It is based on the principle that while the present
generation is entitled to exploit the limited
natural resources of the earth for its sustenance
and survival, the future generations also have a
corresponding right to use the earth’s natural
resources for their sustenance. It recognises
that there should be equity between the
generations in the sustenance use of earth’s
resources.
• Juan Antonio Opasa and Others V. The
Honourable Fulgencio S. Factorab and another
1994 Vol. (1 and 2) SAELR 113.
• The Plaintiffs being minors sued the authorities
along with their parents and on behalf of the
generations yet to be born seeking the court to
cancel all existing timber licences and not to
issue any new licenses against the felling of
virgin tropical rain forest.
• They stated that they have a right for
themselves but also a duty to defend the rights
of the future generations.
• They were successful in their suit .
• Though there was objection to the
plaintiffs who were minors by the
defendants, the Court accepted the Locus
standi – Standing to sue.
• The plaintiffs alleged that they are the
citizens of the Republic of Philipines,
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit,
use and enjoyment of the natural
resources treasure that is country’s virgin
tropical rainforests.
• The plaintiffs stated that if the timber
license agreements are to be implemented
and the rain forests are to be cut down
• the consequences will follow:-
• (a) water shortage resulting from drying up
of water table;
• (b) salinization of water table as a result of
the intrusion therein of saltwater;
• © massive erosion and the consequential
loss of soil fertility and agricultural
productivity;
• (d) the endangering and extinction of the
country’s unique, rare and varied flora and
fauna;
• (e) the dislocation of cultural communities;
• (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and
consequential destruction or reduction of
of coral and aquatic resources;
• (g) recurrent spells of drought;
• (h)increasing velocity of typoon winds
which result in the absence of speed
breakers;
• (i)the flooding of lowlands and agricultural
plains;
(j) the reduction of the earth’s capacity to
process carbon dioxide gases which may
lead to climate change.
• The Court was amazed in respect of which
the Secretary was giving undue and
unwarranted benefits and advantages to
the timber license holders, for he would
have ever bound the Government to
strictly respect the said licenses,
according to their terms and conditions,
regardless of changes in policy and the
demands of public interest and welfare.
• The court referred to an earlier case and
states as follows:-
“… A timber license is an instrument by
which the state regulates the utilization
and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted. A
timber license is not a contract within the
purview of the due process clause. It is
only a privilege which can be validly
• Withdrawn whenever dictated by public
interest or public welfare”

• The Court granted in favour of the

plaintiff.
• M.C.Metha V Kamal Nath and Others
1997 Vol. 4(3) SAELR 122
• M.C.Metha V Union of India (Shriram Gas
Leak Case) A.I.R1987 S.C.1086
• The principle of absolute liability was
recognised.
• Public Trust Doctrine (Power held in trust)
• This doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources
like air, sea, water, fauna and flora have such a great
importance to the people as a whole that it would be
wholly unjustified to make them subject to private
ownership.
• The said resources being a gift of nature should be freely
available to everyone irrespective of status of life.
• Public trust is more than an affirmation of
State power to use public property for
public purpose. It is the duty of the state to
protect the people’s common heritage of
natural resources.
• In M.C.Metha V Kamal Nath and Others
1997 Vol. 4(3) SAELR 122 the Indian
Supreme Court applied this doctrine.
• There was a news item which appeared in
the Indian Express stating that the family
members of the former Minister of
Environment and Forests had a direct link
with a motel at the bank of rivers beas.
The motel encroached the land including
forests lands which were regularized and
later leased out the motel.
• It was stated that the Motel used
earthmovers and bulldozers to turn the
course of the river and diverting the river
flow. This was diverted to save the Motel
from future floods.
• The Supreme Court took notice of the
news item because the facts disclosed
therein, if true were be a serious act of
environmental degradation.
• The court reviewed cases relating to public
trust doctrine to rule that the Government
committed patent breach of public trust by
leasing this ecologically fragile land to the
said Motel when it was purely for
commercial uses.
• The Motel was directed to pay
compensation by way of cost for the
• restitution of the environment and ecology
of the area by applying the PTD.
• Bulankulama and Others V. Secretary Ministry of
Industrial Development and Others (Eppawala
case)2000 (3) S.L.R 243
• Environmental Foundation Ltd. V. Urban
Development Authority of Sri Lanka and Others
S.C. F.R 47/2004
• Dr. A.R.B Amerasijnghe J stated that Article 3 of the
Constitution declares that sovereignty is in the people
and is inalienable. Being representative democracy, the
powers of the people are exercised through persons who
are for the time being entrusted with certain functions.
• Organs of the State are guardians to whom the people
have committed the care and preservation of the
resources of the people.
• He referred to a statement made by the King (reported in
Mahavamsa) which reads as follows:-
• “In my kingdom are many paddy fields
cultivated by means of rain water, but few
indeed are those which are cultivated by
perinnial streams and great land, by rocks
and by many thick forests, by great
marshes is the land covered.
• In such a country, let not even a small
quantity of water obtained by rain,go to the
sea without benefiting man.
• There was also reference made in this case, to a
serman of Arahat Mahinda, son of Emperor
Asoka of India preached to King Devanampiya
Tissa relating to guardianship, which is in the
following words:-
• “ O great king, the birds of the air and the beasts
have as equal a right to live and move about in
any part of the land as thou.
• The land belongs to the people and all living
beings; thou are only the guardian of it.
• Therefore it is very clear that the doctrine
of public trust has been practiced from
ancient times in Sri Lanka. Our ancient
rulers were duty bound to protect and
preserve the natural resources for the
benefit of the people including future
generations.
• Eppawala case
This is a case where the Government of
Sri Lanka was intending to enter into an
agreement for exploration and mining of
phosphate in the Eppawala area in
Anuradhapura, with a foreign Company
which had a branch in Sri Lanka (with a
low share capital.)
• The proposed agreement granted sole and
exclusive right to the company to:-
• (a) to search and explore for phosphate and
other minerals in the Exploration area;
• (b) to conduct test or pilot operations in any
location within the contract area;
• © mine and develop any phosphate deposit
including associated minerals found in the
Exploration area under the mining license.
• The proposed agreement did not provide for an
Environmental Impact Assessment Report, but
provided only a feasibility study.
• Project proposal and exploration plan were not
approved by a project approving agency.
• Strict confidentiality was maintained in the whole
process.
• There was disregard to the provisions of the
National Environmental Act and Mines and
Minerals Act.
• By the said agreement the Government was
intending to give away, for a nominal sum of
money the phosphate mineral which is non-
renewal and valuable, which belongs to the
present and future generation of this country.
• If the proposed agreement was implemented the
said mineral would have been exhausted within
a period of thirty years.
• The Supreme Court decided that there was
arbitrary action by the Government and the
officials were violative of provisions of the
Constitution.
• In the Galle Face case and in the Waters Edge
case, the Government and the official acted
arbitrarilly, disregarding the public trust doctrine,
sovereignty of the people, inter-generation
equity. Etc.
• In the Galle Face case the Urban Development
Authority of Sri Lanka was intending to give on
lease the Galle Face Green to E.A. P Edirisingh
and Others, to turn the Green to a mega
entertainment and leisure park with food stalls
with a hawker-street style theme.
There was no transparency regarding the
management agreement.
The petitioners were denied the right to
information etc.
Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka
did not have any right or interest
whatsoever over the said land.
• Sugathapala Mendis and Others VMs.
Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge
and Others. S.C. F.R No. 352/2007
(Waters Edge case)
• In this case the Petitioners filed the case
on the basis that their right to equal
protection of the law under Article 12(1)
has been violated. They stated that their
lands were acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act
• on the basis that they were required for
public purpose for constructing the
Parliamentary Administrative complex and
for providing water retention as a low lying
area and paid a sum of Rs. 312/= per acre
as compensation.
• Though the lands were acquired on an
urgent basis and vested in the UDA,
nothing was done for about 9 years.
• Later they were sold to a private
entrepreneur to serve as an exclusive and
private golf resort in Sri Lanka.
• The Petitioner stated that the court is the
bastion of the people in whom sovereignty
is reposed and that they are affected by
the patent abuse of executive or
administrative power.
• Later Cabinet gave approval to release the
land to the Asia Pacific Golf Co. on
concessionary terms and several lands
acquired were given to the Respondents
either of free of charge or for a nominal
sum for 99 years. Later the Respondents
were permitted to sell some of the said
lands as restrictions on the sale were
removed.
• Certain other lands were acquired to
develop a playground at Battaramulla in
Kaduwela Pradeshiya Sabha area. The
land was filled by expenditure of public
funds by the P.S. Some of these lands
were also given to the Asia Pacific Co.
with the approval of authorities. (Pg 9 and
10 of Judgement)
• The Co. was permitted to build 100 luxury
holiday villa on freehold basis.

• As a result valuable land inclusive of

marshy land was arbitrarily alienated in
violation of the provisions of the
Constitution.
• Wetlands rely on an established water drainage
pattern. Any population nearby with its paved
streets, gardens storm water etc, inevitably
alters water drainage patterns and affects the
wetland.

• Wetlands provide a haven for a vast number of

living creatures, which rely on them for food,
shelter and as a breeding place.
• Environmental issues were not duly
focused when the EIA was prepared.
• The land which was acquired for public
purpose was alienated to private persons
arbitrarily in violation of the provisions of
the Constitution.

• PTD was discussed at legnth in this case.

• Article 12 of the Constitution ensures the
equality provision. Accordingly
• “All persons are equal before the law and
all persons are entitled to equal protection
of the law.
• No person shall be discriminated on the
ground of sex, religion, language, political
opinion, place of birth etc.
• This Article ensures protection against
arbitrary actions of people in authority.
• Under Articles 3 and 4 read with Articles
12,27 and 28 ensure that the people are
sovereign and assure the rule of law.
Therefore people in authority cannot
misuse their power by any means.
• “The principle that those charged with
upholding the Constitution – be it a police
officer of the lowest rank or the President-
are to do so in a way that does not violate
the doctrine of public trust by state
action/inaction is a basic tenet of the
Constitution which upholds the legitimacy
of Government and the sovereignty of the
People.”
• It is important to specifically understand that no
single position or office created by the
Constitution has unlimited power and the
Constitution itself circumscribes the scope and
ambit of even the power vested with any
President who sits as the head of this country.
• Power must only be used strictly for the larger
benefit of the people, the long term sustainable
development of the country and in accordance
with the rule of law.
• In a system based on the rule of law,
unfettered governmental discretion is a
contradiction in terms.
• It is now well settled that powers vested in
the State, public officers and public
authorities are not absolute or unfettered,
but are held in trust for the public to be
used for the public benefit and not for
improper purposes.
• ACCOUNTABILITY;
• FAIRNESS;
• REASONABLENESS; AND
• TRANSPARENCY
• ARE THE GOALS OF ACHIEVING
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
• Article 27 (2) (e) (Directive principle of state
policy)
• The State is pledged to establish in Sri Lanka, a
democratic socialist society, the objectives of
which include-
• “the equal distribution among all citizens of the
material resources of the community and the
social product, so as best to subserve the
common good.
• Vasudeva Nanayakara & Others Vs. K.N.
Choksy & Others S.S. F.R. App. 158/2007.
• In this case the Petitioners alleged that the
sale of 90% shares of the state owned
SLIC (which was a profit making
institution) to the private sector by
wrongful, irregular and unlawful executive
and administration action has caused
immense loss to the state and the citizens
of Sri Lanka.
• The rule keeps all organs of state within
the limits of the law and the public trust
doctrine operates as a check to ensure
that the powers delegated to the organs or
the government are held in trust and
properly exercised to the benefit of the
people and not to their detriment.
• .
• Ameratunge J referred to Article 28(e) of
the Constitution which casts a duty on
every citizen of this country to preserve
and protect public property and to combat
misuse and waste of public property.
• “the conscience of this Court is shocked
by the manner in which the senior public
officers had handled the sale of a pivotal
asset of the state which belongs to the
people of this country”.
• H. Senarath and Others V Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumaranatunga and Others
S.C.(FR) 503/2005

• The Petitioners stated that they were filing

this case on their own interest as well as in
the public interest and alleged that their
FR under Art. 12 (1) has been violated.
• The alleged infringement relates to the
unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and mala
fide executive action by the 1st Resp.
former President Chandrika Bandaranaike
and the members of the Cabinet in
securing the following:-
• 1. a free grant of a land vested in the UDA
in extent 1 ½ acres close to the
Parliament which had been fully
• Developed at a cost of Rs. 800million;
• 2. premises at 27 Independence Avenue
Colombo 7
• 3. staff, other facilities, vehicles far
exceeding the entitlement given under
Presidents’ Entitlement Act No. 4 of 1986.
•
• The Petitioners stated that the 1st Resp.
and the Cabinet of Ministers of which she
was the Head, being the custodian of
executive power should exercise that
power in trust for the people.

• Reference was made to the In re

Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution
• 2000 (3) S.L.R. 85) which stated that the
respective organs of government are
reposed power as custodian for the time
being exercised for the people.
• Art. 3 and 4 were discussed and the court
stated as follows:-
• “Therefore executive power should not be
identified with the President and
personalised and should be identified
• at all times as the power of the people.

• The 1st Res. and the Cabinet of Ministers

were the custodian of public property and
public funds. The property and funds will
have to be dealt with according to law for
the benefit of the people. “but who is to
guard the guards themselves”
• The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has
taken a leading role in the protection of
environment by_
• (a) entertaining public interest litigation;
• (b) taking liberalized approaches in
granting relief;
• ©influencing the policy makers for the
purpose of preventing pollution.
• Lalanath De Silva V. Nandamitra
Ekanayaka and Others – which led to the
making of Regulations in regard to air
polution.
• Geethanie and Environmental Foundation
Limited V. Minister of Environment and
Others – which led to the preparation of
road maps and plans to reduce air
pollution (Pending case)
• Al Haj M.T.M. Ashik and Four Others,
Trustee of Kapuwatta Mohideen Jumma
Mosque Denipitiya Weligama V. R.P.S.
Bandula OIC Weligama and Nine Others –
which led to the preparation of new
Regulations in regard to noise pollution.
• Sand mining case which led to the making
of the Regulations relating to the
Prohibition of mechanized sand mining.
• The National Environmental Act No. 47 of
1980 as amended by Acts. Nos. 56 of
1988 and 23 of 2000 contains the
provisions relating to the protection of
environment.
• The Central Environmental Authority is
responsible for the implementation of the
Act. It is an independent body which has
the power to sue and be sued.
 THE LAWS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT REPORT PROCEDURE (EIA) IN SRI LANKA

THE COAST CONSERVATION ACT NO. 57 OF 1981 AS AMENDED BY ACT

NO. 1988 INTRODUCED THE EIA PROCEDURE FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN SRI LANKA.

“Coastal Zone” means an area lying within a limit of three hundred meters
landwards of the Mean High Water line and a limit of two kilometers seawards
of the Mean Low Water line;

In the case of rivers, streams, lagoons or any other body of water connected
to the sea either permanently or periodically, he landward boundary shall
extent to a limit of two kilometers measured perpendicular to the straight base
line between the natural entrance points thereof and shall include the waters
of such river, lagoon etc.

According to Part III of the Act any person who wishes to engage in any
development activity within the Coastal Zone shall obtain a permit from the
Director of the Coast Conservation Department.

Procedure:-
- Application to the Director;
- Director requiring the applicant to furnish an EIA relating to the development
activity;
- Submission of the EIA by the applicant to the Director;
- Director sends the EIA to the
(a) Council for its comments within 60 days;
(b) Public to make comments within 30 days of the publication of the notice in the Gazette
specifying the time and place for inspection of the EIA

- the Director to make a decision either to:-

(a) approve the application (conditions may be imposed); or
(b) refuse the application ;

- the Director may vary the condition or revoke the permit (stating reasons) if he is satisfied that-
(a) the permit holder has contravened any of the conditions;
(b) such variation or revocation in necessary for the proper management of the Coastal Zone

* any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director may appeal to the Secretary within 30 days
of the communication of the decision of the Director.

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACT NO. 47 OF 1980

AS AMENDED BY ACTS NOS. 56 OF 1988 AND 53 OF 2000

Part IVC of the Act contains detail provisions relating to the EIA procedure in detail.

PRESCRIBED PROJECTS

The Minister has made Order under section 23Z of the NEA prescribing the projects which should
comply with IEE/EIA vide Gazette Extraordinary No. 722/22 dated 24th June 1993 as amended by
Gazette Extraordinary No.859 /14 dated 23rd February 1995; and Gazette Extraordinary No.
1104/22 dated 27th October 1999
• THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACT
NO. 47 OF 1980 AS AMENDED BY ACTS
NOS. 56 OF 1988 AND 53 OF 2000
• PRESCRIBED PROJECTS
Part IVC of the Act contains detail
provisions relating to the EIA procedure in
detail.
• PRESCRIBED PROJECTS

The Minister has made Order under

section 23Z of the NEA prescribing the
projects which should comply with IEE/EIA
vide Gazette Extraordinary No. 722/22
dated 24th June 1993
• as amended by Gazette Extraordinary
No.859 /14 dated 23rd February 1995; and
Gazette Extraordinary No. 1104/22 dated
27th October 1999
• Project has been defined as “any
undertaking, scheme or plan where
commitment of resources, time and funds,
are envisaged and which comes into
existence at the stage where the project
proponent has a goal and is actively
preparing to make a decision in achieving
that goal.”
• PRESCRIBED PROJECTS

The Minister has made Order under

section 23Z of the NEA prescribing the
projects which should comply with IEE/EIA
vide Gazette Extraordinary No. 722/22
dated 24th June 1993
• as amended by Gazette Extraordinary
No.859 /14 dated 23rd February 1995; and
Gazette Extraordinary No. 1104/22 dated
27th October 1999
• Part 1 refers to the Projects and
Undertakings if located wholly or partly
outside the Coastal Zone. (by the type and
magnitude)

Ex. (a) - Mining and Mineral Extraction

- Port and Harbour
• Development
- Power Generation etc.
• Disposal of Waste - Construction of any
solid waste disposal facility having a
capacity exceeding 100 tons per day
- Construction of hotels or holiday
resorts or projects which provide
recreational facilities exceeding 99 rooms
or 40 hectares as the case may be. (the
cumulative effect of 2 or 3 project may
affect the environment.
• Part II refers to projects and Undertakings
(A) specified in Part I irrespective of their
magnitude and irrespective of whether
they are located within the coastal zone or
not if located wholly or partly in any area
specified in Part III
•
(B) Certain industries located wholly or
partly in any area specified in Part III -
Iron and Steel ; Pesticides and Fertilizers
etc.
• Part III refers to projects and
Undertakings if located in environmental
sensitive areas.
Ex. - Within 100 meters from the
boundaries of or within any area declared
under- the Forest Ordinance within any
erodable area declared under - the Soil
Conservation Act (Cap 450)
 PROJECT APPROVING AGENCIES (PAAS)

The Minister has made Order under section 23Y of the NEA specifying the PAAS
Gazette Extraordinary No.859 /14 dated 23rd February 1995.and Gazette Extraordinary No.1373 /6
dated 29th December 2004.

1) The respective Ministries to which the following subjects are assigned:-

(a) National Planning; Housing;

(b) Irrigation
(c) Energy;
(d) Agriculture;
(e) Lands;
(f) Forests;
(g) Industries;
(h) Housing;
(i) Construction;
(j) Transport;
(k) Highways;
(l) Fisheries;
(m) Aquatic Resources;
(n) Plantations Industries;
2) The Department of Coast Conservation;

3) The Department of Wildlife Conservation;

4) The Urban Development Authority established under the Urban

Development Authority Law No. 41 of 1978.;

5) ) The Central Environmental Authority established under the National

Environmental Act No. 40 of 1980;
6) ) The Geological Survey and Mines Bureau established under the Mines
and Minerals Act No. 33 of 1992.;

7) The Ceylon Tourist Board established under the Ceylon Tourist Board Act
No.10 of 1966.;

8) The Mahaweli Authority established under the Mahaweli Authority of Sri

Lanka Act No. 23 of 1979

9) The Board of Investment of Sri Lanka established under the Greater

Colombo Economic Commission Law of Sri Lanka Law No. 49 of 1992.;
10) The Department of Forests
• The Project Proponent

Any Government Department; corporation;

Statutory Board; local authority; company,
firm or individual.
• THE PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF
PROJECTS

The Minister has made Regulations under

section 23CC read with section 32 of the
NEA specifying the Procedure for approval
of projects.
• The National Environmental (Procedure
for Approval of Projects) Regulation –
published in Gazette Extraordinary No.859
/14 dated 23rd February 1995 as
amended by Gazette Extraordinary
No.1159 /22 dated 21st November 2000.
 PRPJECT PROPONENT

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION TO THE PAA

SCOPING
(Terms of Reference will be laid down to find out as to whether the PP
will have submit an IEE or EIA)

SUBMISSSION OF EIA BY PP TO THE PAA

PAA PUBLISHES A NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF INSPECTION OF THE EIA IN THE
GAZETTE AND IN THE NEWSPAPERS IN ALL THREE LANGUAGES

COMMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS

PUBLIC HEARING IF NECESSARY

COMMENTS SENT BACK TO THE PP

FINAL SUBMISSION OF EIA

 THE PROJECT APPROVING AGENCY MAY
(A) APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS; OR
(B) REFUSE APPROVAL

APPROVAL TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE AND NEWS PAPERS

APPEAL BY THE AGGRIEVED PERSON (PP)TO THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY IN CHARGE OF

THE SUBJECT OF ENVIRONMENT WITHING 30 DAYS OF THE DECISION OF THE PPA.

THE PROJECT PROPONENT SHALL INFORM OF ANY ALTERATION OR ABANDONMENT OF THE

PROJECT TO THE PROJECT APPROVING AGENCY AMD GET FRESH APPROVAL

THE PROJECT APPROVING AGENCY SHALL MONITOR THE PROJECT

An Environmental Impact Assessment report has been defined under section 33 of the NEA:-
It is a written analysis of the predicted environment
containing the following:-

- an environmental cost-benefit analysis (if it

has been prepared) - description of the project
avoidable and unavoidable adverse effects;
• - alternatives – why other alternatives
were rejected/ no alternative
- irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources.
EIA takes into consideration of the impacts
both beneficial and adverse effects on the
environment of a project.
• Significant environmental effects:-
• The impacts of on the nation as a whole,
impacts on a particular region or type of
activity, the impacts on a specific
community.
• The degree to which the proposed project
affects the public health, safety etc.
• Social Impacts, financial impacts,
environmental impacts of the project.
• Cumulative impacts
• There may be instances when individual
projects are relatively small in magnitude
and will not have significant impact on the
environment. If however several projects
are implemented in one location, although
they may be distinct and separate
projects, their overall impacts on the
• Environmement may be adverse. Ex. 2
coal power projects situated in Sampur.-
air pollution.
• Alternatives
• Project specific Ex. Generation of power
• Coal power/solar power/wind power /hydro
power
• Location of the site.
• Public Interest Law Foundation Vs. Central
Environmental Authority 2001 (3) S.L.R.
330 (Southern Expressway case)
• Project approval was challenged on the
ground that the alternative rail route was
not considered. The CAA held all
alternatives were sufficiently considered.
• No action alternative – what would be the
outcome of the project, it is not
implemented.
• Ex. Colombo Katunayake Expressway
project.

• Mitigatory measures:- They are actions

taken to minimize the adverse effects.
• This was considered in the Upper Kotmale
• Project. In this case the Ceylon Electricity
Board requested approval for the
construction of hydro power plant for the
purpose of generation of electricity. The
matter was referred to a technical
committee by the PAA which made sum
• Suggestions and did not recommend
approval. As approval was not given the
PP made an appeal in terms of section
23DD of the NEA to the Secretary of
Ministry of Environment. Appeal was
rejected. PP went to court against the said
decision. Secretary was requested to
reconsider the matter.
• The approval was later given subject to several
condition relating to mitigatory measures. Due to
the environmental concerns in the Project, the
Minister made Regulations for the purpose of
monitoring the project – vide Gazette
Extraordinary No.1283 /19 dated 10th April
2003.
.
• Specific monitoring duties in the form of
mitigatory measures have been specified.
•
The National Environmental (Upper
Kotmale Hydro-power Project – monitoring
Regulation No. 1 of 2003
• Environmental Foundation Limited v. CEA
and Others CAA No. 1556/2004
• The Petitioner challenged the validity of
the approval given by the CEA to a private
company to construct a mini hydro project
on the upper reaches of a river, at an
altitude of about 1750 meters above sea
level, in an area with steep mountain
slopes.
• As approval was granted on the basis of
IEE and not EIA, the public was not
entitled to any notice of the project.
• The PAA had granted approval to an IEE
on the recommendation of a technical
committee. Only the PAA has the power to
decide as to whether an IEE or EIA should
be submitted. The CEA cannot in law
• Surrender the discretion vested in it to the
technical committee.
• Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively.
• Writ of certiorari was granted.
 Bulankulama Vs. the Secretary of Ministry of Industrial
Development and Others 2000 (3) Sr. Law Report pg

Amarasinghe and Others Vs. A.G. and Others -1993 (1)

S.L.R. 376
(Colombo-Katunayake Expressway case)

Heather Therese Mundy V. The Central

Environmental Authority and Others
SC Appeal 58/2003 CA Application 688/2002
• Abandonment of alteration of any project.
• Where any alterations are being made to
any prescribed project, for which approval
had been granted or where any prescribed
project already approved is being
abandoned, PP shall inform the PAA and
obtain fresh approval in respect of
alterations. Section 23EE of NEA
• In the case of Heather Mundi v. CEA and
Others, the Road Development Authority
as a Project Proponent requested
approval from CEA to construct Southern
Expressway in order to link Colombo and
Matara. Approval was granted by the CEA
subject to several conditions which
included the manner in which relocation of
the people could be minimized, providing
• alternative lands together with the
payment of compensation at the market
price without delay, minimizing traversing
through wetlands etc.
• There were three stages of the project
(original, combined and final traces).
• The Appellants’ lands were not affected
within the purview of the original trace.
• and combined trace.
• However they were acquired at the final
trace of the project. They complained that
they were denied an opportunity of being
heard before such adoption, that the CEA
was not informed of the final trace, that
there was no supplementary EIA and that
CEA approval was not obtained.
• In fact the final trance was some distance
away from the original trace and the
combined trace.
• One of the Appellant has commenced
construction of her residence with the
required local authority approval and
completed construction and applied for
electricity connection. It was then she
learnt that her residence would be affected
• By the Expressway. The Respondents
stated that the approval given would cover
the final trace too.
• The Appellants prayed for certiorari to
quash the CEA approval and for
Mandamus to direct the CEA to call for a
supplementary EIA from the RDA in
accordance with the prescribed procedure
• and stated that the alterations effected by
the final trace were illegal in the Court of
Appeal. This is an appeal from the Court
of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
• While hearing the writ application the CCA
stated that “all parties agree that the
expressway project is an absolute
necessity. The CCA appointed a judicial
committee to inquire and submit a report
on the following:-
whether the deviations which form the
subject matter of the case, are feasible in
terms of the NEA and the economy of the
project.
whether the deviations are environmentally
and socially the most desirable.
The incumbent priest of a temple
complained that the final traced traversed
• through the temple resulting in several of
the structures of the temple and the bo
tree being destroyed. The villagers also
complained that they were unaware or the
final trace.
• Based on the report of t he judicial
committee the CCA stated that ‘The
alterations made in this case are in fact
changes of a substantial nature and
extent.
• The Appellants’ main grievance is that
they were denied the right to be heard in
regard to the final trace- which the judicial
committee confirmed. The fact that some
of their neighbours might have been
heard, at some previous stage, does not
excuse the denial of their right to be heard,
and that aspect the CCA failed to consider.
• The CCA referred to Goa Foundation v
Kondan Railway Corporation, AIR 1992
Bombay 471, where it was held that ”a
public project (a railway line) of great
magnitude undertaken for meeting the
aspirations of a section of the people
cannto be defeated on account of
“extreamely negligible” damage to a few
persons., to the effect that ‘the interest of
• the applicant had to be measured against
the needs of good administration which
include need for speed, finality in decision
making and the public interest” and held
that
• “the court should be cautious when
exercising the discretionary remedy of writ
jurisdiction where a project of public
impotance had already commenced and
• Resources have been committed towards
it implementation and the possibility of
quashing a decision leading to unbudjeted
expenditure. The CCA dismissed the
application and concluded as follows:-
• “The Courts have to balance the right to
development and the right to
environmental protection. While
development activity is necessary and
• Inevitable for the sustainable development
of a nation, unfortunately it impacts and
affects the rights of private individuals, but
such is the inevitable sad sacrifice that has
to be made for the progress of a
nation. .Unhappily there is no public
recognition of such sacrifice which is made
for the benefit of the larger public interest
which would be better served by the
• development.
• The courts can only minimize and contain
as much as possible the effect of such
rights.
• The Supreme Court stated that this is a
matter relating to the violation of FR. and
also stated that the courts have
recognized and applied the Public Trust
• Trust Doctrine; that power vested in public
authorities are not absolute or unfettered
but held in trust for the people, to be
exercised for the purposes for which they
have conferred; and that doctrine extends
to national and natural resources. Besides
executive power is also necessarily
subject to fundamental rights in general, to
Article 12(1) in particular which gurantees
• Equality before the law and the equal
protection of the law. Protection of the law
includes the right to notice and to be
heard. According to Article 126(3) FR
matters should be referred to the SC
which has the exclusive jurisdiction of FR.
• Although this court would still be
exercising the writ jurisdiction, its powers
or review and relief would not the confined
• to the old prerogative writs. These
Constitutional principles and provisions
have shrunk the area of administrative
discretion and immunity.
• The Supreme Court analysed the meaning
of ‘alterations”
• Did the deviation at Bandargama and
Akmeemana constitute ‘alterations” within
• the meaning of section 23EE of the NEA
and Regulation 17 (i) (a) and condition III.
• Here the changes were substantial; they
adversely affected the Appellants and their
property rights; they were changes in
respect of the route of the Expressway,
and the route was a principal component
of the project. The SC held that they were
• alterations. The Appellants were entitled to
notice to be heard. The CEA approval in
1999 did not cover the final trace and the
location of the final trace was contrary to
the CEA approval.
• The CCA did not take note of the impact of
the fundamental rights on its writs
jurisdiction. If the matter was referred to
the SC under 126(3) the appellanants
• Would have entitled to compensation
since the jurisdiction is an equitable one.
• If it is permissible in the exercise of a
judicial discretion to require a humble
villager to forego his right to a fair
procedure before he is compelled to
sacrifice a modest plot of land and a little
hut because they are of “extremely
• Negligible” value in relation to a multi-
billion rupee national project, it is
nevertheless not equitable to disregard
totally the infringement of his rights;
• “the smaller the value of his property,
the greater to compensation.”
• The CT held that the deviations were in
fact alterations which need fresh approval.
• An Initial Environmental Examination report has been defined under section 33 of
the NEA:-

It is a written report wherein possible impacts of the prescribed project on the

environment shall be assessed with a view to determining whether such impacts are
significant, and if so whether it requires an Environmental Impact Assessment report
and shall contain the following:-

Descriptions, data, maps, designs and other details as may be prescribed by the
Minister.

• Initial Environmental Examination report is a public document

 •
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Chapter 469) as amended by
Act No. 49 of 1993

“(1) No person or organization, whether private or State shall within a

distance of one mile of the boundary of any National Reserve carry out any
development activity without obtaining the prior written approval of the
Director.

(2) Every application for approval to commence a development activity shall

be accompanied by and Initial Environmental Examination or Environmental
Impact Assessment as the case may be in terms of the National
Environmental Act relating to such development activity. The Director shall
have regard to such environmental impact assessment in deciding whether
or not to grant approval for the commencement of the development
activity.”.
THE NORTH WESTERN PROVINCE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE NO. 12 OF 1990

Part VII of the Statute sets out the procedure for the approval of Projects within the Provincial Council
limits of the North Western Provincial Council.

The Provincial Council Minster in charge of the subject of Environment has made an Order under
section 61 of the above Statue prescribing the Project Approving Agencies as set out in section 41 of
the said Statute and the Prescribed Projects as set out in section 42 of the said Statute by Gazette
Extraordinary No.1,020 /21 dated 27th March 1998.

PROJECT APPROVING AGENCIES (PAAS)

- The North-Western Provincial Environmental Authority; and

- Where the project is in respect of Prawn Farming in any lagoon in any area which is less than
12 hectares or 30 acres the Ministry in charge of the subject of Fisheries.
are the Project Approving Agencies.

PRESCRIBED PROJECTS

Similar projects as set out under the NEA (Order)

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW OF
SRI LANKA

MRS. FATIMA THALAYSINGAM

Deputy Legal Draftsman
Lecturer – Sri Lankan Law College
 POLLUTION

Due to rapid growth of industries, increased use of chemical substances in agriculture;

the increase of motor vehicle use; expanding urbanization resulting in greater generation
of wastes, environmental pollution has become a serious problem in Sri Lanka; The
impact of all these factors has resulted in pollution of (a) land (b) water and (c) air.

Parts IVA and IV B of the National Environmental Act contain provisions relating to
environmental protection and environmental quality. Order made under section 23A of the
NEA and Regulations made under section 23A of the NEA also contain provisions relating
to environmental protection and environmental quality.

A person who is carrying on an activity that pollute the environmental media such as air,
water and land should obtain a license from the relevant authority. The volume of
substances discharged into the environment is controlled by means of conditions
attached to the license. The National Environmental Act contains definitions of (i)
pollution; (ii) waste; (iii) environment; and (iv) beneficial use in this regard.
• Environmental Protection License

The broad framework of the Environmental Protection License procedure is set out
in the following–
1.Section 23 A of the National Act.

2.The Order made under section 23A of the National Environmental Act and
published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1533/16 dated 25th January 2008, which
prescribes the activities for which EPL is required.
Part A of the Order relates to high polluting industries such as Chemicals
manufacturing or repacking industries etc.
Part B of the Order relates to Medium polluting industries

Part C of the Order relates to low polluting industries

Licensing and Renewal fee for activities set out under Part A -
For one year or less Rs. 7,500/=

Licensing and Renewal fee for activities set out under Part B -
For three years or less Rs. 6,000/=

Licensing and Renewal fee for activities set out under Part C -
For three years or less Rs. 4,000/=

(a) The National Environmental (Protection and Quality) Regulations No. 1 of 2008 made under
section 32 read with 23A and 23B of the National Environmental Act and published in Gazette
Extraordinary No. 1534/18 dated 1st February 2008 deals with the following:-

(i) tolerance limits for the discharge of Industrial Waste into inland surface waters;
(ii) tolerance limits for the discharge of Industrial Waste land for Irrigation purpose;
(iii) tolerance limits for Industrial and Domestic Waste into Marine Coastal areas;
(iv) tolerance limits for Waste from Rubber factories being discharged into inland surface waters;
(v) tolerance limits for Waste from Textile industry being discharged into inland surface waters;
(vi) tolerance limits for Waste discharged from tanning industries;
(vii) tolerance limits for Waste discharge of Effluents into Public Sewers with Central Treatment
Plants;
(viii) mode of application etc.; and
(ix) the general terms and conditions.
According to the above said provisions, no person shall discharge, deposit or emit waste into the
environment or carry on any prescribed activity in circumstances which cause or likely to cause
pollution, otherwise than under the authority of a license issued by the Central Environmental
Authority and in accordance with such standards and criteria specified in Schedule 1 of the
Regulations, in respect of the specified industries.

The Authority may also may by direction impose more stringent standards and criteria than those
specified in Schedule 1, in respect of any prescribed activity, having regard to the need to protect the
receiving environment.
• A license is issued on an application made in respect of that behalf and on payment
of the prescribed fee; A license is valid upto a period not exceeding three years.

The Authority shall issue the license only it is satisfied that:-

(a) the license shall not be used to contravene the provisions of this Act or any
regulation made
thereunder;

(b) no irreversible damage or hazard to any person, environment or any nuisance

will result from
the acts authorized by the license;

(c) the applicant has taken adequate steps for the protection of the environment
in accordance
with the requirements of the law. (Regulation 7)

An application for a renewal of a license shall be made at least three months before
the expiry of the license.

The Authority may, before issuing an order suspending or canceling a license under
section 23D of the Act, give the holder of the license an opportunity to show cause as
to why such order should not be issued;
Provided if the receiving environment has been changed or altered due to the continued discharge of
waste and it affects the beneficial use of the environment, the Authority shall forthwith make an order
suspending the license for a period to be specified in the order or cancel such license. (Regulation 9).

Part II of the Regulation deals with the Issue of License for the Management of scheduled Waste.

No person shall generate, collect, transport, store, recover, recycle or dispose waste or establish any
site or facility for the disposal of waste listed under Schedule VIII of the Regulation except under the
authority of a license issued by the Authority and in accordance with such standards and other criteria
as may be specified by the Authority.
Application for a license shall accompany the following:-
(a) a valid certificate of insurance or any form of financial security acceptable by the Authority,
of such sum as is sufficient to cover the risk or damage that may be caused to the public as a
result of any activity relating to waster management.
(b) Such other additional information as the Authority may consider necessary in the interest of

the protection of the environment.

Every application for a license for managing Schedule waste shall by accompanied by a fee
calculated on the following basis:-
Generator - Rs. 1000
Collector - Rs. 1000
Storer - Rs. 10,000
Transporter - Rs. 2000
Recycler - Rs. 5000
Recoverer - Rs. 5000
Disposer - Rs.100,000
A license issued under these regulations is not transferable.

The Authority shall have the power to monitor and inspect activities covered by the license and to
issue guidelines in the management of schedule waste.

Everyone person involved in the management of waste shall, in addition to any other signs or
symbols required under any law, display a plainly visible notice in Sinhala, Tamil and English on the-
(a) site of generation or storage;
(b) vehicle used for transportation;
(c) containers or tanks used for collection and storage; and
(d) disposal sites whither approved or not,
the following statement and visual sign - “Warning, contains waste, Dangerous to human health and
the environment”.

Every generator collector, storer, transporter, recycler, recoverer and disposer of schedule waste shall
ensure that all its employees are adequately trained in handling schedule waste and have a regularly
updated action plan approved by the Authority and to ensure that all such employees shall be
protected by appropriate clothing and other precautions from the adverse effects of the schedule
waste etc.
• Appeal

• (a) An applicant for a license;

•
(b) an applicant for a renewal of a license;
(c) holder of a license whose license is suspended or cancelled by the Authority,
Who is aggrieved by the decision of the Authority may appeal against such decision
to the Secretary of the Minister of Environment.
The Secretary may-
(a) set aside; (b) vary or (c) confirm the decision of the Authority after giving an opportunity for
the appellant to heard.

The Appellate Procedure

The National Environmental (Appellate Procedure) Regulations of 1994, published in

Gazette Extraordinary No. 850/4 dated 20th December 1994 sets out the procedure
that shall be followed in making an appeal under section 23 E of the Act against the –
(a) refusal to grant ;
(b) refusal to renew;
(c) suspension ; or
(d) cancellation

of a license . The application shall -

(a) be in writing signed by the appellant;

(b) be dated and submitted to the Secretary (Environment) within 30 days of the decision;
(c) annex copy of the decision appealed against;
(d) set out the grounds of appeal in numbered paragraphs;
(e) set out relief sought;
(f) set out the names and addresses of relevant parties.
The Secretary shall hear the appellant and all relevant parties after duly notifying them.
The appellant or any party notified may be represented by an Attorney-At-Law or any
person duly authorized. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Secretary shall make a
decision on the appeal within one weak and notify all parties, together with reasons
therefore.

The Secretary may also establish an Appeals Advisory Committee to advise him in
making his decision in appeal.

The relevant cases

- Gunaratne V Homagama Pradeshiya Sabha 1998 S.L.R.

- Jayawardena V Akmeemana Pradeshiya Sabha 1998 S.L.R.
- Keangnam V Road Development Authority and Others.
The Minister has made an Order under section 23W of the NEA prohibiting;

(i) the manufacture of polythene or any polythene product of twenty (20) microns or below
for country use; and

(ii) the sale or use of polythene or any polythene product which is twenty microns or
below in thickness;
• The Minister has made the National Environmental (Air Emission, Fuel and Vehicular
importation Standards ) Regulations under section 23J and 23K of the Act published
in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1295/11 dated 30 th June 2006 relating to
Vehicular Exhaust Emission Standards;
Fuel Standards;
Vehicular Exhaust Emission Standards for importation of vehicles.

The Minister has made the National Environmental (Prohibition of the use of
equipment for exploration, mining and extraction of sand and gem) Regulation which
is published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1454/4 dated 17 th July 2006 which prohibits
mechanized mining sand etc.

The Minister has made the National Environmental (Prohibition of the use of
equipment for exploration, mining and extraction of sand and gem) Regulation which
is published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1454/4 dated 17 th July 2006 which prohibits
mechanized mining sand etc.

The Minister has made an Order under section 23W of the Act prohibiting the use of
certain materials as Ozone depleting substance which is published in Gazette
Extraordinary No. 850/4 dated 20th December 1994.

The Minister has made Regulations under section 23P, 23Q and 23R of the Act
relating to the control of noise – The National Environmental (Noise Control) which
are published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 924/12 dated 23 rd May 1996.
• National Environmental (Prohibition of the
use of equipment for exploration, mining
and excavation of sand and gem)
Regulations
• Gazette No. 1454/4 dated 17th July 2006
The provisions relating to Public Nuisance:-

- Section 261 of the Penal Code defines public nuisance as follows:-

“ A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission, which

causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell

or occupy property in the vicinity or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or
annoyance to persons who may occasion to use any public right.

- Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the

powers of a Magistrate to abate nuisance
procedure applicable for filing actions for public nuisance ;

- Sections 56 and 63 of the Police Ordinance deal with the powers of a police officer in respect of
public nuisance. Accordingly it shall be his duty to use his best endeavours and ability to prevent

all crimes, offences and public nuisances in any part of Sri Lanka.
I.G.’s Circular No. 1196/95 and Crime Branch Circular No. 5/95 also impose duties on police
officers to prevent public nuisance.
Most environmental problems resulting from noise, vibrations, discharging of waste and
emission
of smoke, fumes and dust are also causes of public nuisance .
• Solid Waste Management Rules of 1 of
2008 of the Western Province
• Published in Gazette Extr. No.1560/6
dated 30th July 2008.
• Other relevant laws:-
• Forest Ordinance (Chapter 451)
• Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance
• Marine Pollution Prevention Act 35 of 2008
• Soil Conservation Act
• Coast Conservation Act
• National Heritage and Wilderness Act etc.
• Mines and Minerals Act No. 33 0f 1992
• GOD HAS CREATED, MOTHER NATURE
TO FULFILL THE NEEDS OF MANKIND
AND NOT TO ITS GREED”
Mahathma Gandhi
 Let us join together to prevent waste
and to protect conserve and improve
the riches of Sri Lanka for the benefit of
the generations to come.