Skip to content

3 min read

Sri Lankan veterinarians strike for better treatment of elephants, 2010

media:

Summary

In August 2010, eleven of Sri Lanka’s national wildlife veterinarians held a one-week strike to demand more staffing, new elephant reserves, and a career ladder in the wildlife department, but none of their demands were met before the action ended. [source: nv-database]

Tactics used

Background

Sri Lanka’s elephant population had collapsed from roughly 12,000 in 1990 to about 4,000 in 2010 due to hunting, habitat loss, and conflict with people. [source: nv-database] As farmland expanded into traditional elephant ranges, farmers built electrified fences that enraged elephants and led to attacks on people and property. [source: nv-database] A 2009-2010 economic depression starved the wildlife-veterinary program of funds; the Department had eight of its nineteen vet posts unfilled since 2009, with no recruitment underway. [source: nv-database] In 2010 the government introduced a new elephant-conservation plan that the Wildlife Vet Association (WVA) considered drastically inadequate. [source: nv-database]

What happened

On 15 August 2010, the WVA announced that veterinarians across the country would hold a week-long strike to protest the inadequate conservation plan and the lack of professional development for veterinarians. [source: nv-database] Between 16 and 21 August, the eleven national wildlife veterinarians refused to attend work or serve the government in any capacity, although they continued to treat injured elephants. [source: nv-database] The strikers’ demands included a respectful meeting with the minister in charge of wildlife, better working conditions for wildlife veterinarians, the hiring of eight additional veterinarians, the establishment of new nature reserves with resettlement for displaced elephants, and a career hierarchy that let WVA members advance in seniority and pay without leaving the profession. [source: nv-database]

During the week, WVA representatives met only with the Deputy Economic Development Minister, whose connection to wildlife was limited. [source: nv-database] Beyond this, the GNVAD record finds no documentation that any of their demands were met. [source: nv-database]

Key people & organizations

  • Wildlife Vet Association (WVA) [source: nv-database]
  • Ananda Wijesooriya (Director General, Wildlife Department) [source: nv-database]
  • Sri Lanka Department of Wildlife Conservation [source: nv-database]
  • Deputy Economic Development Minister of Sri Lanka [source: nv-database]

Outcome

Verdict: lost. (1/10 on the GNVAD scale.)

The Wildlife Vet Association’s strike ended after a week with no documented concessions; the conservation plan, vacancies, and career-path issues remained unresolved when the GNVAD entry was published. [source: nv-database]

Lessons

  • Even small, highly specialized professional strikes can fail when the relevant decision-maker refuses to negotiate; bringing the issue to a sympathetic but irrelevant minister does not substitute for access to the actual policy owner.
  • Strikes in a public-good profession (wildlife vets caring for injured elephants during the strike) can preserve moral authority but do not by themselves create leverage if the state has no short-term operational dependency on that workforce [source: nv-database]
  • Conservative GNVAD scoring (1/10) reflects that demands remained unmet — but the action is preserved as a teaching example of how even “winless” protests can reframe the policy debate and seed later organizing [source: nv-database]

Sources

Disclaimer: Included as a teaching example of campaign craft, not as endorsement.

Sources & verification

  • nv-database — grounding: primary — license: link-only

Last verified: 2026-07-09