evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ganthuna PES Pilot — Watershed Payments for Hydropower Protection (Sri Lanka)

Sri Lanka · Aranayake · See the Sri Lanka profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 96% 20/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Sri Lanka's first PES pilot (2019-22): hydropower firm Vidullanka (60%) and IUCN Sri Lanka (40%) spent ~LKR 6.1M restoring riparian buffers and forest in the 507-ha Ganthuna catchment to offset sedimentation costs to turbines. Tiny scale; unreplicated as of 2025.

~LKR 6.1 million (~US$20,000-30,000)
Total project cost (2019-2022)
Vidullanka 60% / IUCN 40%
Funding split
507 ha
Catchment area
~4.2 ha
Area directly treated
10,400 m²
Riparian buffer restored
22,000 m²
Forest enrichment planting
~10,000 m²
Community/school forest and orchard blocks
>3,200
Trees planted
Ganthuna PES Pilot — Watershed Payments for Hydropower Protection (Sri Lanka)

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
IUCN Sri Lanka / Vidullanka PLC / UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN)
Period
2019-2022
Keywords
watershed PES, hydropower, riparian restoration, forest enrichment, community forestry

Context

Erosion and slope farming in the upper catchment of the 507-hectare Ganthuna Small Hydropower Plant (on the Gurugoda Oya stream, near Aranayake in Kegalle District) were causing sedimentation that damaged turbines and reduced reservoir storage.

Activities

Between 2019 and 2022, IUCN Sri Lanka, the private hydropower producer Vidullanka PLC, and UNDP's Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) piloted Sri Lanka's first Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme, testing whether a downstream water user — here a hydropower operator rather than a drinking-water utility — would pay upstream land users to avoid future infrastructure costs. Vidullanka funded 60% and IUCN 40% of a total project cost of about LKR 6.1 million (roughly US$20,000-30,000). Interventions covered only about 4.2 hectares directly: 10,400 m² of riparian buffer restoration, 22,000 m² of forest enrichment planting, and roughly 10,000 m² of community/school forest and orchard blocks, with more than 3,200 trees planted.

Results

Coordination involved Sri Lanka's Ministry of Environment, Forest Department, Department of Agriculture, Central Environmental Authority, Sustainable Energy Authority, and the Aranayake Divisional Secretariat.

Conclusions

The pilot remains very small relative to its 507-hectare catchment and was disrupted by COVID-19. No independent hydrological outcome data (sediment reduction, turbine performance) has been published; the figures above are drawn from project design and reporting documents rather than post-hoc verification. As of a 2025 BIOFIN update, it was still described as Sri Lanka's only implemented PES scheme, with no national PES policy adopted and a second, tea-plantation pilot only "being considered."

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — ~LKR 6.1 million total (~US$20,000-30,000): Vidullanka 60%, IUCN 40%.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — 2019-2022 pilot, disrupted by COVID-19.
Staffing & skills
IUCN Sri Lanka, Vidullanka PLC (private hydropower producer), UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), Sri Lanka Ministry of Environment, Forest Department, Department of Agriculture, Central Environmental Authority, Sustainable Energy Authority, Aranayake Divisional Secretariat (coordination)

Conditions for success

  • Direct beneficiary (downstream hydropower operator) co-funding the majority of costs (60%) alongside a conservation NGO (40%)
  • Multi-agency government coordination across environment, forestry, agriculture and energy authorities

Common failure modes

  • Very small scale (4.2 ha treated) relative to the 507-ha catchment
  • Disrupted by COVID-19
  • No independent hydrological outcome data (sediment reduction, turbine performance) has been published
  • No national PES policy adopted as of 2025; the scheme remains Sri Lanka's only implemented PES pilot

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful