Discourse on whether Sri Lanka should export several crop destroying pests, including toque macaque monkeys, have made national headlines, with various parties coming forward to point out the practical, ethical and scientific aspects of the matter. Although official statements claim that this course of action, which is still in the planning stage, is aimed at sending the said type of animal to Chinese zoos, various unfounded claims, including the one that these animals would be abused or even killed for meat, have made the discussions surrounding the said plan more complex and controversial.

This plan is certainly controversial and is difficult for many to accept as suitable or scientific, because this is the first time that the country is considering such a plan of this magnitude. However, the Government’s stance in this regard appears to be logical and clear. It points out that these animals, especially monkeys, are destroying a considerable amount of crops which in turn affects the country’s food production and economy.

Sri Lanka seems to have limited options in this regard, especially when it comes to monkeys, who, among the other animals identified as destroying crops, are said to be causing the most damage. As per reports, although other suggestions such as relocating and sterilising monkeys have been presented, the practicality and effectiveness of those suggestions remain highly questionable, and have therefore not received attention as suitable alternatives. As much as it sounds unorthodox to Sri Lankans, the Government’s interest in responding positively to China’s request appears to be a much more feasible step in this regard, even though the effectiveness of this is yet to be seen. That is why Sri Lanka should look at this matter in a practical manner. In the absence of feasible and effective solutions, at least for the time being, the majority’s well-being has to be prioritised.

That is not to say that various ethical concerns in this regard should be disregarded. How ethical it is to separate animals, especially monkeys who naturally prefer company, from their natural habitat, and also what guarantee Sri Lanka has of these animals’ well-being in the event this plan materialises, are valid concerns. At the same time, law-related concerns have also emerged. According to environmentalist Dr. Jagath Gunawardana, there are no legal provisions under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance to export the endemic toque macaque monkeys except under special circumstances that are mentioned in the Ordinance. In addition, various other concerns against the Government’s plan, such as whether getting rid of the planned initial 100,000 monkeys would actually help reduce the destruction of crops, have been raised.

In this context, it is crucial that all parties that are concerned about this plan take a more scientific and practical approach in this regard. Merely opposing or supporting the Government’s plans, especially in a context where Sri Lanka too has imported a large number of animals for the Dehiwala Zoo, would only further complicate and prolong this issue, and is unlikely to bring any closure to this problem. International examples of relocating animals due to reasons such as excessive population, climate change related developments and conflicts with humans have paid attention to the relocated animals’ well-being. However, those concerns are usually based on scientific, tangible concerns, and not mere assumptions. In cases where such relocation was not possible or difficult in countries such as India and Zimbabwe due to various reasons, various other options such as sterilisation and the culling of animals had been sought, which would be a big no-no in the Sri Lankan context.

Thus far, no alternative has been proposed, and therefore, the most sensible next step for now would be the Government proceeding with its interest in entertaining China’s request. That could be a pilot project which involves exporting less than the proposed number of animals. That would allow these various parties to take a more open-minded look at this programme, which would dispel or prove at least some of the doubts that have emerged in this discussion, which would consequently help both the Government and the other relevant parties to determine whether this pilot project was a mistake or a success. If better solutions were proposed, those who are against the Government’s stance would have a better chance at getting the Government to reconsider its stance and the Government would have alternatives to reconsider without allowing this issue to prolong or exacerbate.