Illegal capture and internal trade of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka

Abstract

The illegal wildlife trade is considered one of the major threats to global biodiversity. Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) have been highly valued by various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts, as a draft animal, and more recently, as a tourist attraction. Thus, the demand for captive elephants is high. Wild Asian elephants are taken from the wild, often illegally, to maintain these captive populations due to the unviability of captive breeding programs. For the first time, we documented the extent to which wild elephants are being illegally captured and traded in Sri Lanka between January 2008 and December 2018. We collected data from case records maintained by the Sri Lanka court system where the suspects of illegal elephant trade were prosecuted in addition to information gathered by archives and interviews with various stakeholders. We documented 55 cases where elephants were illegally traded. This is probably an underestimate due to the mortality rate of elephants during capture operations, and challenges in collecting data on this highly organized illicit trade. Nearly equal numbers of male and female elephants were traded and more than 50% of them were juveniles, aged ≤5 years. Significantly more elephants were found to be seized in 2014–2015 than in the other time periods combined. We found evidence of the illegal capture of wild elephants from wildlife protected areas and state forests. More importantly, we identified evidence of corruption of wildlife officers, involvement of politicians and other high-ranking personnel in the illegal wildlife trade, and lack of active enforcement of wildlife law as major challenges to overcome if the illegal capture and domestic trade of wild elephants in Sri Lanka are to be halted. Based on our study, we make a series of recommendations that should result in implementing policy to reduce the trafficking of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka and improve the conservation management of the species.

Full text

Illegal capture and internal trade of wild
Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka
T. G. Supun Lahiru Prakash1, W. A. A. D. Upul Indrajith2,
A. M. C. P.Aththanayaka2, Suranjan Karunarathna3, Madhava Botejue4, Vincent
Nijman5, SujanHenkanaththegedara6
1Biodiversity Conservation and Research Circle of Sri Lanka, Paranakanda, Wattala, Sri Lanka 2Depart-
ment of Wildlife Conservation, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka 3Nature Explorations and Edu-
cation Team, De Soysapura Housing Scheme, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka 4Biodiversity Conservation Society, Stanly
ilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka 5Department of Social Sciences, Gipsy Lane, Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford, UK 6Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Longwood University, Farm-
ville, Virginia, USA
Corresponding author: Sujan Henkanaththegedara (henkanaththegedarasm@longwood.edu)
Academic editor: M. Auliya|Received 5 August 2020|Accepted 20 October 2020|Published 3 November 2020
http://zoobank.org/27F2C7FD-BBA0-4FA8-A607-24F6BB5C1E45
Citation: Prakash TGSL, Indrajith WAADU, Aththanayaka AMCP, Karunarathna S, Botejue M, Nijman V,
Henkanaththegedara S (2020) Illegal capture and internal trade of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Sri
Lanka. Nature Conservation 42: 51–69. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.42.57283
Abstract
e illegal wildlife trade is considered one of the major threats to global biodiversity. Asian elephants
(Elephas maximus) have been highly valued by various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts,
as a draft animal, and more recently, as a tourist attraction. us, the demand for captive elephants is high.
Wild Asian elephants are taken from the wild, often illegally, to maintain these captive populations due
to the unviability of captive breeding programs. For the rst time, we documented the extent to which
wild elephants are being illegally captured and traded in Sri Lanka between January 2008 and December
2018. We collected data from case records maintained by the Sri Lanka court system where the suspects
of illegal elephant trade were prosecuted in addition to information gathered by archives and interviews
with various stakeholders. We documented 55 cases where elephants were illegally traded. is is probably
an underestimate due to the mortality rate of elephants during capture operations, and challenges in
collecting data on this highly organized illicit trade. Nearly equal numbers of male and female elephants
were traded and more than 50% of them were juveniles, aged ≤5 years. Signicantly more elephants were
found to be seized in 2014–2015 than in the other time periods combined. We found evidence of the
illegal capture of wild elephants from wildlife protected areas and state forests. More importantly, we
Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
doi: 10.3897/natureconser vation.42.57283
https://natureconservation.pensoft.net
Copyright T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservation
A peer-reviewed open-access journal

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
52
identied evidence of corruption of wildlife ocers, involvement of politicians and other high-ranking
personnel in the illegal wildlife trade, and lack of active enforcement of wildlife law as major challenges to
overcome if the illegal capture and domestic trade of wild elephants in Sri Lanka are to be halted. Based
on our study, we make a series of recommendations that should result in implementing policy to reduce
the tracking of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka and improve the conservation management of the species.
Keywords
Asian elephant, endangered species, illegal trade, national parks, wildlife crimes, wildlife tracking
Introduction
e wildlife trade is one of the most protable multi-billion dollar enterprises, involv-
ing direct exploitation of wild plants, animals, other organisms and their derivatives
(Rosen and Smith 2010; South and Wyatt 2011; Sas-Rolfes et al. 2019). Wildlife trade
operates at a global level, both legally with proper governmental and international
licensure or through illicit means, and fundamentally involves trading animal and/or
plant material for monetary gain or for exchange of goods and services (Wyatt 2013).
Although large volumes of wildlife trade take place across international borders, a sub-
stantial amount, and perhaps most, of this trade happens within nations (TRAFFIC
2008; Zhang et al. 2008; Nijman 2010). Wildlife is traded for a variety of uses such
as food, medicine, luxury goods, exotic pets, entertainment, spiritual, and laboratory
use (Rosen and Smith 2010; Wyatt 2013; NRDC 2020). Possession of certain wildlife
products may display social status, wealth, and auence; the rarest species may incur
great demand, high prices and high prot margins (Das 1990; Nijman and Shepherd
2010; Gunasekara 2011; South and Wyatt 2011; Tella and Hiraldo 2014). us, spe-
cies susceptible to harvesting from the wild are pushed further towards the edge of
extinction particularly when population growth cannot replenish the rate of harvests
(Wilson 1988; Courchamp et al. 2006; Tella and Hiraldo 2014).
Wildlife trade is considered a major threat to global biodiversity (Nijman 2010).
For some species, harvesting from the wild for trade is the primary cause of population
decline and local extirpation (Rabemananjara et al. 2007; Nijman and Shepherd 2010;
Gunasekara 2011; Tella and Hiraldo 2014) whereas in several other species, trade-
based overexploitation has greatly stressed the predicament of habitat loss (Sutherland
et al. 2009; WWF 2017). Additionally, the wildlife trade acts as a potential source for
the spread of invasive species and disease-causing agents (Karesh et al. 2005). Much of
the illegal trade in wildlife tends to be associated with a number of charismatic and/
or high-prole species and elephants fall into the top-end of this category (Smith et al.
2009; Nijman 2010).
roughout their centuries-long history across Asia, Asian elephants (Elephas
maximus) have been revered and closely connected to, and highly valued by, various
cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts, as draft animals and, more recent-
ly, as a tourist attraction (De Silva and De Silva 2007; Fernando et al. 2011). As a
keystone species, they also play an important role in maintaining the regional forest

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 53
structure (Ishwaran 1993; Sukumar 2003; De Silva and De Silva 2007). e IUCN
Asian Elephant Specialist Group (2019) estimated the global population size of Asian
elephants to number 45,671–49,028 individuals. After India, the largest remaining
population is found on the island of Sri Lanka; in 2019 this was estimated at ~5,900
individuals or about 13% of the global total (Fernando et al. 2019). At a global level,
Asian elephants are listed as ‘Endangered’ in the IUCN Red List (Choudhury et al.
2008) and it receives this same listing in Sri Lanka (Ministry of Environment 2012).
While habitat loss and fragmentation have been historically considered the key
driving forces of population decline of Asian elephants, in recent decades, human-
wildlife conict has intensied (Ishwaran 1993; Bandara and Tisdell 2003; Fernando
et al. 2019). Human-elephant conict is accentuated by a growing human population
that is encroaching, degrading and fragmenting natural elephant habitats, and forcing
elephants into closer contact with people (Fernando et al. 2005, 2019; Choudhury
et al. 2008). A recent survey showed that elephants occupy over 60% of land and
people are resident in 69% of the elephant range in Sri Lanka (Fernando et al. 2019).
Furthermore, the human-elephant conict in the country has increased markedly in
intensity and its geographic extent, claiming 263 elephants per annum (the global
highest annual elephant death rate) in 2010– 2019 (Prakash et al. 2020). Meanwhile,
the live capture of wild elephants, previously used for labor and now increasingly for
tourism, has played a key role in the decline in wild populations and is now considered
a potentially signicant threat to wild Asian elephants (Shepherd and Nijman 2008a;
Nijman 2014; Schmidt-Burbach et al. 2015).
roughout their natural range, the numbers of captive elephants are decreasing
along with their role as draft animals, increasingly being replaced by machinery. How-
ever, their use in tourism is on the increase and may sustain the demand for captive
elephants. Eorts to breed Asian elephants in captivity appear to be lagging behind
with the noteworthy exception of the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage in Sri Lanka
(Fernando et al. 2011). A long gestation period, low birth rates in captivity, the pur-
ported abundance of wild populations, and the previous widespread availability of
Asian elephants in the wild have hindered interest in captive breeding, hence the cap-
ture of wild individuals to maintain captive populations has long been preferred over
breeding in captivity (Lair 1997; Leimgruber et al. 2011). Furthermore, the authori-
ties’ actions to stop the smuggling have been limited and ineectual, so sustaining the
illegal wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka (personal observations). As a result, captive
populations are still largely maintained by wild captures, both legal and illegal, which
is extremely detrimental to the conservation of this endangered species (Fernando and
Pastorini 2011; Baker et al. 2013).
e illicit trade of wild-caught Asian elephants is prominent in several nations in
Asia, particularly in ailand, Myanmar, Laos, India, and Sri Lanka (Baskaran et al.
2011; Nijman 2013, 2014; Prakash 2014; Hankinson et al. 2020). Nijman (2014)
reported that 79–81 wild elephants were illegally captured from the wild, mostly in
Myanmar, and traded in ailand over a two-year time period (April 2011–March
2013). In addition, in the 1990s, about 50–100 wild elephants were smuggled from

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
54
Myanmar every year (Lair 1997). Even though statistics are not available, the illegal
captures of wild elephant calves to maintain captive populations have been reported
from India (Baskaran et al. 2011).
Although appreciable numbers of studies have been conducted elsewhere in Asia,
no comprehensive studies have been done on the illegal live wild elephant trade in Sri
Lanka. In this study, we document the extent to which elephants were being illegally
captured in the wild between January 2008 and December 2018, and present informa-
tion on biometrics of smuggled elephants, an analysis of legal documentation process
(and the violations) together with information on capturing and tracking methods,
source areas, trade routes, stakeholders involved, and the market value of live Asian
elephants in Sri Lanka using best-available data. We expect this information to be used
in implementing policy to reduce the tracking of Asian elephants and conservation
management of the species.
Methods
is study was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative data covering the
entire country of Sri Lanka. e data for this study was mainly generated through
case records maintained by the Sri Lanka courts system where the suspects of illegal
elephant trade were prosecuted. irty-nine criminal proceedings led before 15 Mag-
istrate Courts by the Department of Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka (DWC) and
Crime Investigation Division (CID) of Police Department of Sri Lanka were utilized
in this study. A variety of other reliable sources were also used that documented the
elephant trade in Sri Lanka. ese include reports of three committees appointed by
the line ministry of wildlife conservation between 2014 and 2018 to investigate the
illegal live wild elephant trade, queries of information for clarication made by Auditor
Generals’ Department of Sri Lanka, and investigative reports and newspaper articles by
environment activists and journalists. Interviews with 23 stakeholders (i.e. eld DWC
ocers, investigative journalists, environmental activists, animal welfare activists, envi-
ronmental lawyers, key informants, elephant owners, mahouts, and suspects) were also
employed in data collection, specically on major source areas for elephants, methods
of live capture, transportation of captured elephants and trade routes.
We have deemed the elephants to be suspected smuggled elephants when legal pro-
ceedings were instituted or conducted by the authorized institutions against the respec-
tive suspects under the provisions of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No.
2 of 1937 and/or the Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 with seizing the elephants
(N = 39; Dissanayake 2016). Additionally, we included information on suspected
smuggled elephants based on CID investigations, but the elephants were not yet seized
(N=5), and elephants disclosed by the DWC and environmental activists from urban
areas (N= 3) and wilderness areas (N=8; Dissanayake 2016). e elephants seized
from wilderness areas were under restraints by the smuggling rackets at the time of
seizure (see Table 1 and Fig. 1).

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 55
Table 1. Summary of cases utilized for this study.
Category Total number of
elephants
Remarks (N = number of cases)
e case is being heard 39 Smuggled elephant according to the Auditor General’s Department
observations (N = 3)
Irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID
investigations (N = 10)
Smuggled elephant according to the Auditor General’s Department
observations. Irregularities have been found in registration documents
during the CID investigations (N = 11)
No such information is available (N = 15)
Data on legal proceedings
not available
11 Disclosed by the DWC from urban areas (N = 3)
Seized by the DWC from wildernesses (N = 8)
CID investigations without
seizing the elephant
5 Irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID
investigations (N = 1)
Handed over to the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage (N = 1)
No such information is available (N = 3)
Total 55
Figure 1. Some illegally captured Asian elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Sri Lanka: A a male,
2–3 years old juvenile (Gōnaganāra 2) seized in 2017 from Monaragala District B a male, 3–4 years old
juvenile (Hamu) seized in 2014 from Gampaha District Nadika Hapuarachchi C a sub-adult, 6–7 years
old (Gōnaganāra 1) seized in 2016 from Monaragala District D a female, less than 1 year old calf (Hambe-
gamuwa) seized in 2016 from Monaragala District E unsexed, and unaged individual seized in 2014 from
Kurunegala District F a male, 6–7 years old sub-adult (Sahayoga) seized in 2014 from Colombo District.
We used the average of estimated age range for analysis (e.g. estimated age of 3
or 4 years was calculated as 3.5 years). e life stages of elephants were categorized
according to the following criteria: calves (≤1 year old), juveniles (2–5 years old),
sub-adults (6–10 years old), and adults (≥11 years old). We analyzed temporal pat-
terns in the trade in 2-year periods, beginning in 2008, using χ2 tests, and dierences
between reported ages in the registration documents and estimated ages by veteri-
narians with a Mann-Whitney U test. We accepted signicance when P<0.05 in a
two-tailed test (Zar 2010).

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
56
Results
Age and sex of suspected smuggled elephants
We found records of 55 cases of suspected smuggled elephants. Forty-six (83.6%) of
those elephants had an identity reported with a name. Twenty-four (43.6%) elephants
were females and 23 (41.8%) were males, while the sex of eight elephants (14.5%)
was not reported. Two elephants (3.6%) were identied as calves (≤1 years old), 14
(25.4%) as juveniles (2–5 years old), 29 (52.7%) as sub-adults (6–10 years old), four
(7.2%) as adults (≥11 years old) and six (10.9%) were not aged (Fig. 1). However, we
identied a major gap between the reported age in the registration documents and
the estimated age of elephants by the veterinarians of the DWC (Fig. 2). e average
reported age in the registration documents of elephants (12.3±SE 1.0 yrs) according
to licenses was higher than the estimated age by the veterinarians (6.9±SE 0.8 yrs);
the dierence is statistically signicant (z=5.543, P<0.0001).
Legal analysis of suspected smuggled elephants
Only 33 (60.0%) elephants were registered while 17 (30.9%) elephants were not reg-
istered, three (5.4%) were under government letters of patent, and no information was
available for two elephants (3.6%).
DWC and CID instituted 39 (70.9%) criminal proceedings before 15 Magistrate
Courts against the suspects who were involved in the illegal live elephant trade in
Sri Lanka. ese suspected smuggled elephants were seized by the authorized insti-
tutions and kept at the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage or Elephant Transit Home,
Udawalawe. ree (7.7%) were considered smuggled elephants according to the Audi-
tor General’s department observation, 10 (25.6%) were considered smuggled elephants
as irregularities were found in the registration documents during the CID investiga-
tions, and 11 (28.2%) were smuggled elephants according to the Auditor General’s
Department observation (with additional irregularities in registration documents as
revealed by the CID investigations). Furthermore, CID was investigating ve other
cases, but elephants were not yet seized. Of these ve, one is a smuggled elephant as
irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID investiga-
tions. One of these suspected smuggled elephants was voluntarily handed over to the
Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage by the owner during the investigation (Table 1).
ree elephants were disclosed by the DWC and environmental activists from
urban areas in Sri Lanka during the early phase of this study (Prakash 2014). ese
elephants were suspected as smuggled from the wild; however adequate information
was not available. e remaining eight elephants were seized by the DWC from wilder-
ness areas and found restrained by the smuggling rackets at the time of seizure (Fig. 1).
ese eight elephants were reported from Ruhuna (Yala) National Park (N=2), Man-
aged Elephant Range – Hambantota (N=2), Galgamuwa, Maho, Weerawila, and Kat-
agamuwa sanctuary (one in each location; Fig. 3). Moreover, six licenses were found

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 57
Figure 2. e distribution of reported age in the registration documents and estimated age by the veteri-
narians of the DWC of elephants studied.
without the existence of live elephants which may indicate plans for future smuggling
activities. erefore, it is clear that a minimum of 55 and possibly more elephants have
been illegally captured from the wild in Sri Lanka during the period between January
2008 and December 2018 (Table 1, Figs 1, 3).
Perera (2015) reported that the last elephant birth in captivity was recorded in
1994. However, the report submitted to the Magistrate Court by the Director Gen-
eral of DWC on 09 July 2015 (DWC 2015) stated that 37 applications have been
submitted for registration of elephant calves born in captivity during the period of
2000–2015. is raises a serious suspicion about the origin of these 37 elephant calves.
Further, this report mentioned that DWC have registered 68 elephants under private
ownership after the year 2009 (DWC 2015). erefore, we nd that at least 31 (i.e. 68
minus 37), and up to 68 elephants have been illegally captured from the wild. Accord-
ing to the same report, no elephant conception, birth, miscarriage or stillbirth in cap-
tivity was reported since 2009 in accordance with the 2009 amendment of the Fauna
& Flora Protection Ordinance. erefore, the last elephant registration in December
2014 as per the same report is also problematic because the average gestation period of
an Asian elephant is 22 months (Lueders et al. 2012).
e discrepancies between the reported age in the registration documents and the
estimated age of elephants by the veterinarians of the DWC suggest some irregularities
in the elephant registration process. We found information about potential corruption
at DWC from reports of committees appointed by the line ministry of wildlife conser-
vation between 2014 and 2018 and queries of information for clarication made by

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
58
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of seized locations of Asian elephants from 13 districts of Sri Lanka (lled
circles) overlaid on the distribution of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka (orange shade; after Fernando
et al. 2019).

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 59
Auditor Generals’ Department of Sri Lanka to investigate the illegal live wild elephant
trade (see Auditor General’s Department 2014; Dissanayake 2016). is included the
fraudulent registration of elephants by tendering false and forged documents regarding
the birth of elephant calves and matters in respect to the mother elephants, entering
false minutes in les and altering entries and replacing photographs in older les.
Original entries were erased and new entries were typed over these erasures. Photo-
graphs of elephants in the older les have been removed and these were replaced by
new photographs of other elephants. To facilitate the fraudulent registrations and is-
sues of licensing, the corrupted ocers at DWC have maintained les without el-
ephants and les where elephants have been reported dead without closing or revoking
the said les.
Temporal and spatial trends of illegal capture of wild elephants
Elephant seizures were reported from eleven administrative districts of Sri Lanka
with the highest number of seizures being reported from Colombo district (16 cases;
31.4%; Fig. 3). e highest number of seizures during the study period occurred in
2015 (20 cases; 36.4%), followed by 2016 (14 cases; 25.4%) and 2014 (11 cases;
20.0%). e number of cases we recorded were not homogenously distributed over the
six 2-year time windows (χ2=94.2, df=5, P<0.0001). Signicantly more elephants
were seized in 2014–2015 than in the other time periods combined (χ2=75.3, df=2,
P<0.0001). Conversely, the periods 2010–2011 and 2012–2013, for which we found
no evidence of elephant seizures, contained signicantly fewer cases than in the other
time periods combined (χ2=7.88, df=1, P=0.005).
rough interviews with eld DWC ocers and investigative journalists, we
found direct photographic evidence (Fig. 1) for the illegal capture of wild elephants
from wildlife protected areas and state forests including Ruhuna (Yala) National Park,
Udawalawe National Park, and Katagamuwa Sanctuary and state forests in Managed
Elephant Range – Hambantota, Galgamuwa, Maho, and Weeravila. We also suspect
that wild elephants were illegally captured from Minneriya National Park, Kaudulla
National Park, Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve, Sigiriya Sanctuary and Hurulu Eco Park,
based on interviews conducted with the eld DWC ocers, investigative journalists,
and environmental activists. Additionally, our interviews revealed that culprits have
used various methods to capture live elephants from the wild, including capturing
young elephants by either killing or sedating the maternal elephant by shooting or us-
ing tranquilizing guns, injecting tranquilizers into young elephants, pit-fall trapping,
and noosing. It is also suspected that culprits have traded elephants in rehabilitation
under the authority of the DWC at Elephant Transit Home (ETH) in Udawalawe,
with or without the knowledge of the resident Wildlife Conservation Ocers. Fur-
thermore, interviews with the suspects revealed that young elephants orphaned as a re-
sult of human-elephant conicts have also been subjected to trade. Usually, when there
is an orphaned young elephant, the general public informs the DWC about it and
ETH rescues and rehabilitates these young elephants. However, in some incidences,

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
60
some criminal enterprises may have intercepted the information ow and abducted the
young elephants before DWC and/or ETH reached the orphaned elephant.
Reports of committees appointed by the line ministry of wildlife conservation be-
tween 2014 and 2018 to investigate the illegal live wild elephant trade (see Dissanayake
2016) and interviews conducted with eld DWC ocers, environmental activists, and
local journalists provided evidence of the transportation of elephant from the wild by
jeeps and vans with tinted windows. is somewhat mimics a motorcade of political
elites, so preventing scrutiny by authorized ocers and also distracting public atten-
tion. Container trucks were also used for calves and juveniles. e trade routes from
source areas to detentions could even be public roads as smugglers get o scot-free
through these aforementioned methods. Famous people in society, including busi-
nessmen, politicians, Buddhist monks, high-ranking government ocers, magistrates,
tourism entrepreneurs and armed forces personnel, have been suspected participants
in the live elephant trade in Sri Lanka (see Auditor General’s Department 2013; Dis-
sanayake 2016). is is a very lucrative business and a single elephant can be sold for
between 7.5 and 12.5 million Sri Lanka Rupees in 2018 (~USD 40,500–67,500; nd-
ings during this study).
Discussion
Our study has shown that the illegal wild elephant trade is a major challenge for the
conservation and management of endangered Asian elephants in Sri Lanka. We found
at least 55 cases of illegally captured elephants from the wild in Sri Lanka during the pe-
riod of January 2008–December 2018. Although it is still only about 0.1% of total Sri
Lankan wild population / year (55 cases over 10 years equals 5.5 cases per year), we want
to stress that our number may represent an underestimate due to two major reasons; the
secretive operations of this illegal trade in Sri Lanka, and the unreported mortality rate
of elephants during the capturing process, transport and in captivity. Although our data
was largely based on anecdotal reports (i.e. court reports, investigation reports, media
reports, and stakeholder interviews), there is a consistency between sources that gives
our claims a measure of legitimacy. More importantly, we have used the best available
information from multiple sources to dissect the illegal live elephant trade in Sri Lanka.
e percentage of calves and juveniles in illegal trade (29.0%) is higher than in
wild populations in Sri Lanka (17.8%; Perera 2015), and similar to that found by
Nijman (2014) for illegally traded elephants in ailand (i.e. 17/79, 21.5%). Unlike
ailand, we found an equal number of males and females, whereas in ailand 80%
were female (Nijman 2014). Without an established captive breeding program in Sri
Lanka, the higher percentage of calves and juveniles in captivity suggest an input from
wild populations providing further evidence of elephant smuggling.
e actual number of captures of elephants from the wild could be higher due to
the high mortality rate in captivity under illicit trade. Even at ETH, the mortality rate of
arrivals is around 40% where an intensive care facility with close monitoring by resident

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 61
veterinary surgeons and trained sta of DWC is maintained for orphaned elephants
until they are t enough to be released back into the wild (De Silva and De Silva 2007).
Wildlife trackers are unlikely to provide any veterinary care for illegally captured el-
ephants. Additionally, the licenses maintained by the suspects without elephants show a
range of ages from 1 year to 20 years. We suspect that they may have held these licenses
with the expectation of smuggling elephants from the wild in the future. Additionally,
the reported age of elephants based on registration documents is signicantly higher
than the estimated age by veterinarians, suggesting misconduct in registrations.
Smith et al. (2015) argued that corruption is one of the signicant challenges
in the conservation of elephants, while Milman (2013) identied the role that park
sta, enforcement ocers and politicians have been playing in the illegal trade of el-
ephants. is chain of corruption is operated through a system of bribery, which may
weaken eorts to combat the illegal elephant trade, and enforce wildlife conservation
law (Barnes et al. 1995). Our ndings suggest a similar chain of corrupt personnel
behind the illegal wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka. e registration of wild-caught
elephants falsely claiming that they had been born in captivity is very challenging due
to the amended 2009 Act No. 22 of the Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance. Ac-
cording to the amended act, in the event of a pregnancy of a captive female elephant,
the owner of such an elephant has to report this to the Director General of the DWC
including information such as the details of the sire, an uneventful death of the mother
elephant during birth etc. However, elephant smugglers and corrupt ocers have not
been deterred in their activities by the above amendment. ey had adopted devious
methods like falsely backdating their applications and tendering fraudulent documents
and adavits containing false material to obtain registrations. Further, the minutes of
the les had also been altered. e applications made in 2012, 2013, and 2014 were
backdated to dates in 2008 with the involvement of corrupt ocers of the DWC. is
may explain the reason behind the signicant dierence between the reported age of
elephants based on registration documents and the age estimated by veterinarians.
Wild elephants are often caught in Myanmar using pit fall traps where they are
corralled into pits with the aid of captive elephants (Nijman 2014). Researchers have
reported – although this has not been necessarily veried – that automatic weapons
are increasingly being used to kill protective members of the herds in Myanmar and
ailand (Nijman 2014). In Sri Lanka, smugglers have used much more sophisticated
methods compared to Myanmar and ailand to capture elephants such as sedating
the maternal elephants using tranquilizing guns and injecting tranquilizers into the
young elephants. Meanwhile, automatic weapons are also used to kill protective mem-
bers of the herds. As live young elephants are prized higher than adults in Myanmar
and ailand (Nijman 2014), the same market trend can be anticipated in Sri Lanka.
Legal protection for wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka
Elephants are mainly protected by three acts of legislation and two other acts of legisla-
tion can also be utilized in combating the illegal live wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka, the

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
62
authority for which has been delegated to two government Institutions (Table 2). ere
is no legal provision given to any private entity to capture elephants from the wild for any
reason in any circumstances without prior permission granted by the Director General of
DWC. e constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka itself provides
for protection for nature. According to Article 27(14) of the constitution, the state shall
protect, preserve, and improve the environment for the benet of the community. Wild
elephants are a part of the nature; therefore, the state bears the responsibility of protect-
ing them. Other than that, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907
and Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 (FFPO) provide more legisla-
tive provisions for combating illegal live wild elephant smuggling in the country.
e most relevant law is the FFPO as amended by Act No. 49 of 1993 and Act
No.22 of 2009 which deals with both wild and domestic elephants. DWC was es-
tablished and charged with management and implementation of the Fauna and Flora
Protection (Amendment) Act, No.22 of 2009. In view of provisions in Section 22A
(12) of the last amendment in 2009 any elephant which has not been registered under
the provision of the FFPO shall be presumed to have been taken or removed from the
wild without lawful authority or approval and such elephants shall be deemed to be
public property. e provisions of the Oences Against Public Property Act, No. 12
of 1982 shall accordingly apply in respect of such elephants. Furthermore, any oence
committed under the Act involving an elephant shall be a non-bailable oense and the
provisions of the Bail Act, No. 30 of 1997 and the Code of Criminal Procedure Act,
No. 15 of 1979 shall apply in respect of such an oense (DWC 2017).
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 make better provi-
sion for the prevention of cruelty to all animals and these provisions can be utilized
to protect elephants found in captivity suering pain by reason of starvation, mutila-
tion, or other ill-treatment. e Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1998 is also
important as there is increasing evidence of false documents being used to smuggle
elephants and get licenses.
In addition to national protection, international protection against live elephant
trade is aorded by e Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which is a multinational agreement to which countries
voluntarily join. e aim of CITES is to ensure that legal international trade does
not endanger the survival of wild plants or animals. A permit system is the primary
mechanism by which wildlife trade is regulated through CITES. Asian Elephants have
been listed in Appendix I of CITES since its inception in 1975, generally prohibiting
international trade in wild individuals and their derivatives except in exceptional cir-
cumstances. Article III.3.c of CITES allows trade in an Appendix I species if “a Man-
agement Authority of the State of import is satised that the specimen is not to be used
for primarily commercial purposes”. erefore, the international trade of elephants
does occur on a small but regular basis in the zoo trade. Sri Lanka has been a member
of CITES since 1979 (CITES 2014). However, transactions of live wild elephant trade
in Sri Lanka appear not to have included cross border trade and therefore CITES is
unable to be used as an eective mechanism to curb this type of trade.

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 63
The corruption behind the illegal wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka
Government ocials responsible for elephant conservation in Sri Lanka, under the in-
uence of political pressure or inuenced by bribery, either avoid making an honest at-
tempt to combat this illegal trade of wild elephants or oer only limited resistance. On
several occasions, attempts were made to release the suspected smuggled elephants to
the oenders with only minor penalties. For example, the Director General of DWC
was pressurized by high ranking politicians to release the elephants using loopholes in
the legislation and even cabinet memoranda were presented (i.e. Cabinet memoran-
dum number 16/2204/708/017-1 and dated 04th July 2016 forwarded by the Minister
of Sustainable Development and Wildlife and cabinet memorandum number PMO/
CM/44/2019 dated 10th September 2019 forwarded by the Prime Minister and two
Ministers), to release the elephants to the oenders.
e climax of these organized wildlife crimes in Sri Lanka can arguably be consid-
ered to have been the August 2013 misplacement of the register of captive elephants
archived at the head oce of DWC. As a result, the DWC and the Police Department
of Sri Lanka have launched several investigations into elephant smuggling since 2014.
is has also led to protests by the general public and environmental activists against
this illegal trade.
The past and the future of captive elephants in Sri Lanka
Historically, the captive elephant population in Sri Lanka mainly depended on wild
captures and noosing and kraaling were widely used for capturing free ranging el-
ephants (Elapatha 1997). However, the emotional outcry following an unfortunate
incident of an elephant being killed in Panamure Kraal in Sabaragamuwa Province
of Sri Lanka led to the ban on elephant captures by private individuals in the coun-
try in 1950 (Elapatha 1997; Katugaha 2008). However, private captures were again
allowed in 1972–1974 and a few elephants that were captured by DWC were trans-
ferred to various parties (e.g. high-prole personnel, clergy etc.) until the 1980s.
Again, this action was prohibited due to the rapidly declining number of elephants
in the wild (Fernando et al. 2011). A national policy for the conservation and man-
agement of wild elephants was developed in 2006, which proposed to domesticate
Table 2. Legislations and authorized government institutions related to Asian elephant conservation in
Sri Lanka.
Legislation Authorized Institutions/Persons
e constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka General Public (under fundamental right jurisdiction)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 Department of Police
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 DWC
Department of Police
General Public (under section 60E)
Oences committed against Public property Act No. 12 of 1982 Department of Police
Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1998 Department of Police

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
64
problematic elephants to satisfy demands for captive elephants, but this policy has
not yet been implemented eectively. Furthermore, fearing post-reproduction wear-
ing of females, captive elephant owners do not permit captive breeding. Besides,
it takes well over 10 years for newborns to serve as draft animals; thus calves do
not help to generate any income for the elephant owners. erefore, continuing
demands for captive elephants as draft animals are fullled by illegally capturing
from the wild.
Meanwhile surplus demand for elephants has been created since the end of the
civil war in Sri Lanka in 2009. e emergence of peace has enabled the public to
engage more in religious and cultural activities. Elephants hold a central position in
the country’s two main religions, Buddhism and Hinduism (Wisumperuma 2004).
erefore, demand increased to domesticate elephants to provide for religious and
cultural festivals. e demand for live elephants had also increased tremendously
among the emerging class of new rich businessmen because elephants are symbolic
statements of physical and mental strength, intelligence, responsibility, and prosperity
(Fernando et al. 2011).
Corruption, ineective laws, weak judicial systems, lack of enforcement of wildlife
law and light sentences allow criminal networks to keep plundering wildlife with lit-
tle regard for the consequences (De Silva and De Silva 2007; Shepherd and Nijman
2008b; Nijman 2010). ese factors make the illegal wildlife trade a low-risk busi-
ness with high returns. e masterminds behind illicit wildlife trade operations are
not penalized by the law enforcement. Instead, local poachers are usually the only
ones caught, leaving the real culprits operational and capable of striking again (WWF
2017), and the situation is more or less similar in Sri Lanka. At the same time, smug-
glers use Buddhist culture as a Trojan horse and the inuence of certain religious lead-
ers is tapped to manipulate investigations into the live elephant trade and related policy
decisions in Sri Lanka (Prakash 2014).
Domestic and wild elephants in Sri Lanka are treated under the same legislation, the
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 (FFPO), and this is an undoubted
advantage for combating the illegal live elephant trade in the country. e population of
wild Asian elephants in ailand is estimated at between 3126–3341, and about 3783
individuals belong to the ai domestic elephant population (Asian Elephant Special-
ist Group 2019). Compared to ailand, the percentage of elephant population under
captivity in Sri Lanka is very low and has historically been declining (Fernando et. al.
2011), making it relatively easy to control such illegal trade in Sri Lanka.
In terms of impact, habitat loss associated with smuggling leads to extirpation of
elephants from certain home ranges. e Sri Lankan illegal live elephant trade spe-
cically targeted males. is can skew the sex ratio of a population toward a female
bias and reduce genetic variability, fecundity and recruitment (Sukumar 2003). Several
studies have also found that such targeted extractions interfere with the herd’s com-
plex social structure and can cause long-lasting psychological eects on individuals
(Bradshaw et al. 2005; Ishengoma et al. 2008; Archie and Chiyo 2012) as they have
strong social networks (see Perera 2015).

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 65
Recommendations for improved conservation and management
Based on our study, we make a series of recommendations that should result in im-
plementing policy to reduce the tracking of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka and to
improve the conservation management of the species.
In the short term, we urge the relevant authorities and government bodies to speed
up the judiciary process against suspects and penalize the oenders who smuggled the
elephants from the wild for trade purposes. It goes without saying that this should
happen in a fair and just manner, irrespective of the suspect’s social status, political
aliation or role in society.
If ocers of the DWC are either directly or indirectly involved in the trade, in-
cluding by assisting the smuggling rackets, immediate legal and/or disciplinary action
should be taken. Any measures taken should be made public in order to deter those
tempted by this illegal act in the future.
In the intermediate term, we urge that funds, expertise and time be made available
to assist the Elephant Transit Home in the Udawalawe National Park and Pinnawala
Elephant Orphanage with the smuggled elephants under their care. is assessment will
help to determine whether these elephants are t enough to be released back to the wild.
Still in the intermediate term, we urge the enactment of a national policy on cap-
tive elephants which introduces a scientic and transparent process regarding the reg-
istration and renewal of licenses to hold captive elephants. is should lead to a limit
on the use of captive elephants for cultural, religious, and tourism purposes. As part
of this, we urge the authorities responsible for the welfare and conservation of Asian
elephants in Sri Lanka to adopt the standardized captive elephant registration proto-
cols and best practices proposed by the Seventeenth Conference of Parties of CITES in
2016 and the second Asian Elephant Range States’ meeting in 2017. ese guidelines
include DNA registration, monitoring protocols for captive populations, guidelines
for the management and welfare of captive elephants, disease management including
zoonotic diseases, training and capacity building of sta and mahouts, and specic
national policy to manage the captive elephant population to avoid illicit live elephant
trade (Sakamoto 2017). ese new protocols may discourage the malpractices associ-
ated with the illegal trade of wild Asian elephants and secure the welfare of captive
Asian elephants in Sri Lanka.
Conclusion
Our study, for the rst time, has provided the best available information regarding the
extent, mechanisms and the potential impacts of live wild Asian elephant smuggling in
Sri Lanka. Although the numbers of smuggled elephants are relatively low compared
to neighboring counties, it is very clear that smugglers have been using sophisticated
methods and operate under strong networks involving corrupt wildlife ocers, politi-
cians, clergymen and even military personnel. Despite the availability of sucient local

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
66
legislation to stop these illicit activities and protect endangered Asian elephants from
smuggling, the lack of active enforcement of wildlife law is hindering the progress of
conservation of wild elephants in Sri Lanka.
Acknowledgements
We thank Prithiviraj Fernando, ilina Surasinghe, Ravindranath Dabare, and Sajeewa
Chamikara for their valuable advice and help, K.U.P. Dayarathna and the eld sta of
the DWC of Sri Lanka for their support and encouragement during the eld data collec-
tions, and village ocers for their help in accessing the study sites. We also thank Mark
Auliya, Jan Schmidt-Burbach and W. Keith Lindsay for their helpful suggestions to-
wards improving this manuscript. Funding: Page charges for this publication were cov-
ered by the Cook-Cole College of Arts and Sciences at Longwood University, Virginia,
USA. Competing interests: e authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Reference
Archie EA, Chiyo PI (2012) Elephant behaviour and conservation: Social relationships, the ef-
fects of poaching, and genetic tools for management. Molecular Ecology 21(3): 765–778.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05237.x
Asian Elephant Specialist Group (2019) e Asian Elephant. https://www.asesg.org [Last accessed
25 September 2020]
Auditor General’s Department (2013) Inspection of illegally captured baby elephants from the
wild (Text in Sinhala Language). (TM/EL/WL/A.B/2013/V:V:02). Central Environment
Authority of Sri Lanka.
Auditor General’s Department (2014) Inspection of illegally captured baby elephants from
the wild (Text in Sinhala Language). (TM/EL/WL/A.B/2013/V:V:02). Auditor General’s
Department of Sri Lanka.
Baker SE, Cain R, van Kesteren F, Zommers ZA, D’Cruze N, Mac Donald DW (2013) Rough
trade: Animal welfare in the global wildlife trade. Bioscience 63(12): 928–938. https://doi.
org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6
Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of
Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: Empirical evidence. Biological Conservation 110(3): 327–342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00241-0
Barnes RFW, Blom A, Alers MPT (1995) A review of the status of forest elephants Loxo-
donta africana in Central Africa. Biological Conservation 71(2): 125–132. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00014-H
Baskaran N, Varma S, Sar CK, Sukumar R (2011) Current status of Asian elephants in India.
Gajah 35: 47–54.
Bradshaw GA, Schore AN, Brown JL, Poole JH, Moss CJ (2005) Elephant breakdown. Nature
433(7028): 807–807. https://doi.org/10.1038/433807a

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 67
Choudhury A, Lahiri Choudhury DK, Desai A, Duckworth JW, Easa PS, Johnsingh AJT, Fer-
nando P, Hedges S, Gunawardena M, Kurt F, Karanth U, Lister A, Menon V, Riddle H, Rü-
bel A, Wikramanayake E (2008) Elephas maximus. e IUCN Red List of reatened Spe-
cies 2008. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/12828813 [Last accessed 01 June 2018]
CITES (2014) Sri Lanka. https://www.cites.org [Last accessed 08 September 2020]
Courchamp F, Angulo E, Rivalan P, Hall RJ, Signoret L, Bull L, Meinard Y (2006) Rarity
Value and Species Extinction: e Anthropogenic Allee Eect. PLoS Biology 4(12): e415.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040415
Das I (1990) e trade in freshwater turtles from Bangladesh. Oryx 24(3): 163–166. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300033895
De Silva M, De Silva PK (2007) e Sri Lankan Elephant: Its Evolution, Ecology and Conser-
vation. WHT Publications, Colombo, 278 pp.
Dissanayake NE (2016) e report of the one-member committee appointed to investigate into
whether any act of corruption or fraud had been committed by the ocers of the Depart-
ment of Wildlife Conservation in registering and issue of annual licenses contrary to the
provisions of the ora and fauna ordinance and further to investigate into whether any irreg-
ularities had been committed in the issue of “CITES permits” (Text in Sinhala Language).
Ministry of Sustainable Development and Wildlife Conservation, Battaramulla, 133 pp.
DWC (2015) Report forwarded under Sections 115(1), (2), (3), (4), 120(1), (3) of chapter
number XI of the Code Of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 (Text in Sinhala Lan-
guage). (2968/15). Department of Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka.
DWC (2017) Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. http://www.dwc.gov.lk [Last accessed 08
September 2020]
Elapatha Jr S (1997) Elephant kraals at Panamure – A historical record. Loris 21: 118–125.
Fernando P, Pastorini J (2011) Range-wide status of Asian elephants. Gajah 35: 15–20.
Fernando P, Wickramanayake E, Weerakoon D, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardene M, Janaka HK
(2005) Perceptions and patterns in human-elephant conict in old and new settlements
in Sri Lanka: Insights for mitigation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation
14(10): 2465–2481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-0216-z
Fernando P, Jayewardene J, Prasad T, Hendavitharana W, Pastorini J (2011) Current status of
Asian elephants in Sri Lanka. Gajah 35: 93–103.
Fernando P, De Silva MKCR, Jayasinghe LKA, Janaka HK, Pastorini J (2019) First country-
wide survey of the Endangered Asian elephant: Towards better conservation and manage-
ment in Sri Lanka. Oryx: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318001254
Gunasekara S (2011) Export trade of indigenous freshwater shes of Sri Lanka. Samantha Gu-
nasekara, Colombo, 126 pp.
Hankinson E, Nijman V, Abdullah (2020) Asian elephants: 15 years of research and conser-
vation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1460: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1460/1/012055
Ishengoma DRS, Shedlock M, Foley CH, Foley LJ, Wasser SK, Balthazary ST, Mutayoba BM
(2008) Eects of poaching on bull mating success in a free ranging African elephant (Loxo-
donta africana) population in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. Conservation Genetics
9(2): 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9332-0

T.G. Supun Lahiru Prakash et al. / Nature Conservation 42: 51–69 (2020)
68
Ishwaran N (1993) Ecology of the Asian elephant in lowland dry zone habitats of the Ma-
haweli River Basin, Sri Lanka. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9(2): 169–182. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0266467400007148
Karesh WB, Cook RA, Bennett EL, Newcomb J (2005) Wildlife trade and global disease emergence.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 11(7): 1000–1002. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1107.050194
Katugaha HIE (2008) e Last Kraal in Sri Lanka. Gajah 29: 5–10.
Lair R (1997) Gone Astray: e Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity.
http://www.fao.org/3/ac774e/ac774e00.htm [Last accessed 28 June 2019]
Leimgruber P, Oo ZM, Aung M, Kelly DS, Wemmer C, Senior B (2011) Current status of
Asian Elephants in Myanmar. Gajah 35: 76–86.
Lueders I, Niemuller C, Rich P, Gray C, Hermes R, Goeritz F, Hildebrandt TB (2012) Gestat-
ing for 22 months: Luteal development and pregnancy maintenance in elephants. Proceed-
ings. Biological Sciences 279(1743): 3687–3696. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1038
Milman O (2013) Ranger corruption ‘impeding global ght against poaching’. e Guardian
27 March. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/ranger-corruption-
impeding-ght-poaching [Last accessed 28 July 2019]
Ministry of Environment (2012) e National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Sta-
tus of the Fauna and Flora. Ministry of Environment, Colombo, 452 pp.
Nijman V (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity
and Conservation 19(4): 1101–1114.
Nijman V (2013) Asian elephant loans from Lao PDR to Japan. Trac Bulletin 25(2): 46–46.
https://www.trac.org/site/assets/les/3002/trac_pub_bulletin_25_2_elephant_loans.pdf
Nijman V (2014) An assessment of the live elephant trade in ailand. TRAFFIC Interna-
tional, Cambridge, 38 pp.
Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2010) e role of Asia in the global trade in CITES II-listed poison
arrow frogs: Hopping from Kazakhstan to Lebanon to ailand and beyond. Biodiversity
and Conservation 19(7): 1963–1970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9814-0
NRDC (2020) Wildlife trade. https://www.nrdc.org [Last accessed 25 September 2020]
Perera BV (2015) Living with Wild Elephants: Experiences of a wildlife Veterinarian in Sri
Lanka. BV Perera, Panadura, 253 pp.
Prakash TGSL (2014) Life with Elephants (Text in Sinhala Language). Center for Conservation
and Research, Rajagiriya, 240 pp.
Prakash TGSL, Wijeratne AW, Fernando P (2020) Human-Elephant Conict in Sri Lanka:
Patterns and Extent. Gajah 51: 16–25.
Rosen GE, Smith KF (2010) Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal
Wildlife. EcoHealth 7(1): 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-010-0317-y
Sakamoto M (2017) Recent topics on CITES related to Asian Elephants in particular. Gajah
47: 42–44.
Sas-Rolfes M, Challender DW, Hinsley A, Veríssimo D, Milner-Gulland EJ (2019) Illegal wild-
life trade: Scale, processes, and governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
44(1): 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033253
Schmidt-Burbach J, Ronfot D, Srisangiam R (2015) Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), pig-
tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) and tiger (Panthera tigris) populations at tourism

Illegal trade of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka 69
venues in ailand and aspects of their welfare. PLoS One 10(9): e0139092. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139092
Shepherd CR, Nijman V (2008a) Elephant and Ivory Trade in Myanmar. TRAFFIC Southeast
Asia, Selangor, 32 pp.
Shepherd CR, Nijman V (2008b) An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and
tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, 24 pp.
Smith KF, Behrens M, Schloegel LM, Marano N, Burgiel S, Daszak P (2009) Reducing the
risks of the wildlife trade. Science 324(5927): 594–595. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
ence.1174460
Smith RJ, Biggs D, St John FAV, ’t Sas-Rolfes M, Barrington R (2015) Elephant conservation
and corruption beyond the ivory trade. Conservation Biology 29(3): 953–956. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cobi.12488
South N, Wyatt T (2011) Comparing illicit trades in wildlife and drugs: An exploratory study.
Deviant Behavior 32(6): 538–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.483162
Sukumar R (2003) e Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 478 pp.
Sutherland WJ, Adams WM, Aronson RB, Aveling R, Blackburn TM, Broad S, Ceballos G,
Côté IM, Cowling RM, Da Fonseca GAB, Dinerstein E, Ferraro PJ, Fleishman E, Gascon
C, Hunter Jr M, Hutton J, Kareiva P, Kuria A, Macdonald DW, Mackinnon K, Madg-
wick FJ, Mascia MB, Mcneely J, Milner‐Gulland EJ, Moon S, Morley CG, Nelson S,
Osborn D, Pai M, Parsons ECM, Peck LS, Possingham H, Prior SV, Pullin AS, Rands
MRW, Ranganathan J, Redford KH, Rodriguez JP, Seymour F, Sobel J, Sodhi NS, Stott
A, Vance‐Borland K, Watkinson AR (2009) One hundred questions of importance to the
conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23(3): 557–567. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01212.x
Tella JL, Hiraldo F (2014) Illegal and Legal Parrot Trade Shows a Long-Term, Cross-Cultural
Preference for the Most Attractive Species Increasing eir Risk of Extinction. PLoS One
9(9): e107546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107546
TRAFFIC (2008) Wildlife trade: What is it? http://www.trac.org [Last accessed 05 July 2019]
Wilson EO (1988) e current state of biological diversity. In: Wilson EO, Peter FM (Eds)
Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, 3–18.
Wisumperuma D (2004) Human-elephant relationships in Sri Lanka: An historical and
archaeological perspective. In: Endangered Elephants, Past Present and Future. Biodiversity
and Elephant Conservation Trust, Rajagiriya, 6–12.
WWF (2017) Illegal wildlife trade. http://wwf.panda.org [Last accessed 05 March 2018]
Wyatt T (2013) Wildlife tracking: A deconstruction of the crime, the victims, and the of-
fenders. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 215 pp. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137269249
Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical Analysis (5th edn). Prentice-Hall/Pearson, Upper Saddle River, 944 pp.
Zhang L, Hua N, Sun S (2008) Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness
in southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(6): 1493–1516. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-008-9358-8