Dr Hiranya Sudasinghe: Can a Stream Be Protected If the People Beside It Receive Nothing?

STORY 9 OF 10: Part of a series of short stories inspired by our conversation with Dr Hiranya Sudasinghe, sharing what years of experience have taught them to see.

The stream runs beside private land.

Trees shade the water. Their roots hold the bank together. Beneath them, an endemic fish may depend upon the cool, clear habitat they help create.

On a conservation map, the answer appears simple:

Keep the trees.

On the family’s map, the situation may be more complicated.

The land may support a crop, provide timber, hold commercial value or represent the family’s principal asset.

It is easy to demand that someone preserve nature when the cost belongs entirely to them.

Hiranya argues that conservation must include the people living beside the habitat.

This does not mean every streambank should be developed because development creates income.

It means conservation must move beyond instructions written for imaginary landscapes in which nobody needs to earn a living.

A durable solution may enable landowners to retain natural streamside vegetation while using other parts of the property.

It may involve compatible crops, incentives, technical assistance, payments for stewardship or income connected to protecting the landscape.

The exact solution will differ from place to place.

That is part of the point.

Hiranya’s words that inspired this story

“You have to think on the human side of things as well.”

“If it’s your private property, you might also get some commercial interest out of it. You can’t just plant trees for the sake of a tiny fish.”

“We like to think about conservation maybe in a one-sided way but… at the ground-level it is much more complicated, with multiple dimensions that need to be considered.”

“The ideal situation would be that the people there actually benefit from being part of the conservation story.”

Why it matters

Conservation often asks local people to carry costs that benefit everyone else.

A family may be asked not to clear land.

A farmer may be asked to retain a stream corridor.

A village may face restrictions.

Meanwhile, the national benefit belongs to the wider public, researchers, organisations, visitors and future generations.

If the people nearest the habitat receive only restrictions, conservation may begin to feel like something being done to them rather than with them.

What this changes

The strongest conservation models should seek local benefits such as

• Sustainable income

• Employment

• Better water quality

• Recognition

• Training

• Support for local enterprises

• Stewardship incentives

• A meaningful role in decisions

  
  

The aim is not to ask people to choose between a living stream and a living income.

It is to find ways in which one does not require the destruction of the other.

Next beneath the surface

The people living beside a stream may be its most important protectors.

Some of those protectors may already be playing in the water every afternoon.

Next: What If the Children Who Play in a Stream Became Its Best Protectors?

Previous: How Much of Sri Lanka’s Wildlife Story Are We Still Unable to Read?

Meet Dr Hiranya: Read He Chose the Fish