A new study on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in Sri Lanka reveals that the overall quality of reporting on how development projects affect people—including identifying social impacts, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating them before major decisions—remains low, often failing to safeguard local communities.
The report, “Assessing the Assessments: An Analysis of Social Impacts Reported in Environmental Impact Assessments in Sri Lanka”, published by the Centre for a Smart Future, Colombo, highlights two high-profile projects—the Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project (UOMDP) and the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA)—as examples that resulted in severe consequences for communities.
Senith Abeyanayake, the report’s author, notes that UOMDP has been in the public spotlight for decades due to design flaws and politicisation. Conceptualized under successive governments and rejected by Asian Development Bank (ADB) feasibility studies for technical issues and adverse impacts, the project was pushed forward despite significant opposition from local communities and environmentalists, largely for political expedience.
“Though the project is now operational, flaws in preliminary studies and project design caused a nine-year delay and additional direct costs of USD 39 million,” Abeyanayake states. More importantly, community-level reports detail a range of socio-economic impacts, including structural damage to houses, drying wells, and water shortages affecting over 7,000 families.
Even though the Supreme Court ordered compensation for affected farmers in 2015, many have yet to receive full payments.
Since opening in 2013, MRIA has become a symbol of so-called “white elephant” projects, earning the dubious title of “the World’s Emptiest International Airport,” the report continues. Beyond economic losses, the Auditor General’s Department notes an increase in human-elephant conflict linked to the project, causing harm and deaths to both people and elephants, as well as property damage.
These impacts have also affected airport operations, necessitating a dedicated wildlife office on-site. The report points to poor site selection and procedural flaws as key contributors to these challenges.
The study analyzed 250 Sri Lankan EIA reports published between 1991 and 2025. In Sri Lanka, social impact assessments are incorporated into EIAs rather than treated as standalone requirements. Addressing social impacts is primarily guided by project-specific Terms of References (ToRs) issued by Project Approving Agencies (PAAs).
The report identifies several “methodological deficiencies.” Approximately 45% of EIA reports provide no explanation of the methodology used to identify or evaluate social impacts, while 85% fail to disclose any limitations or assumptions, leaving readers unable to assess the robustness of findings.
Consultants frequently use identical, “copy-pasted” impact descriptions across projects. For instance, unsubstantiated lists of social impacts—such as “clandestine relationships” or “increased smuggling”—are often applied to projects of vastly different scales and locations, adding verbosity without site-specific value.
Over half (52%) of reports fail to classify social impacts based on magnitude, reversibility, or temporality (short-term vs. long-term). Among those that do apply scales, 76% do not define what the numbers represent, leaving the assessment logic opaque to the public.
The study also highlights the use of sweeping generalizations and hostile language toward low-income or rural populations. Some reports even frame political movements or trade unions as negative “social impacts,” suggesting a drift from technical assessment into political commentary.
Reporting and accessibility issues further undermine EIAs. Executive summaries, intended for general readers, are often written in highly technical jargon. While guidelines recommend a maximum of 100 pages, some reports now exceed 500 pages, making it difficult for affected communities to digest information within the 30-day public review period.
Transparency is another concern. Public scrutiny is limited due to inconsistent data disclosure: 40% of reports do not consistently cite data sources, and among studies using mixed-method primary data, only 31% clearly disclose sample sizes and survey periods.
The report also notes serious breaches of data protection. Many EIAs include sensitive personal identifiers—names, addresses, National ID numbers, and household incomes—in public annexures, potentially discouraging honest participation from residents.
Furthermore, ToRs issued by approving agencies are inconsistently drafted. For example, 17% of ToRs do not require reports to classify impacts or explain methodology, resulting in wide variations in report quality even under the same regulatory framework.
The study paints a concerning picture of EIAs in Sri Lanka: despite being a key tool for safeguarding communities, the assessments are frequently undermined by methodological flaws, poor data practices, and political influence, highlighting an urgent need for reform.
