Highlight 21/2025: Can tourism be a pathway to peace in post-conflict societies? Peacebuilding and prosperity in Sri Lanka
Manjushka Savithri Gunathilaka, 15 April 2025
Tourism requires peace to thrive; however, it can also serve as a strategic tool for securing and sustaining peace in post-conflict settings. Therefore, tourism is widely recognized as an effective soft power mechanism that facilitates reconciliation, healing, and reconstruction in societies recovering from conflict.
In Sri Lanka, which endured a 30-year civil conflict, tourism has played a key role in rebuilding trust and fostering economic recovery among diverse communities.
Following the end of the civil war in 2009, a surge of southern Sinhalese visitors to the war-ravaged northern regions, overwhelmed local infrastructure and prompted Tamil families to host them. These interactions helped humanize former adversaries and foster understanding between the Sinhala and Tamil communities. Further, initiatives such as the Jaffna International Trade Fair and the opening of new hotels in Jaffna have strengthened long-term community ties and promoted trust through shared economic and cultural activities.
Tourism has played a crucial role in Sri Lanka’s post-war economic recovery, with tourist arrivals growing rapidly between 2009 and 2018, making tourism the third-largest source of foreign exchange by 2018. This growth created jobs and business opportunities, particularly in conflict-affected areas such as Jaffna, Batticaloa, and Trincomalee, where improved infrastructure and new hospitality services have stimulated local economies. Community-based tourism (CBT) initiatives has further empowered locals by encouraging them to manage homestays, tours, and handicraft businesses, ensuring they benefit directly from tourism while promoting social cohesion and stability. High-profile events, such as the 2016 UNWTO Conference in Pasikudah attended by delegates from 26 countries, have reinforced Sri Lanka’s commitment to peace through tourism. Collaborative initiatives, including capacity development partnerships such as twinning programs and development projects, have introduced best practices and strengthened Sri Lanka’s global profile.
Post-war tourism development has focused on sustainability to prevent environmental and cultural degradation. Eco-tourism initiatives have been promoted in wildlife parks, forest reserves, and coastal areas, with agencies and NGOs introducing sustainable practices like green building standards and community-led conservation. These measures help protect Sri Lanka’s natural and cultural heritage while preventing conflicts over resources and ensuring long-term benefits.
The Sri Lankan government has actively promoted tourism as a tool for peace and economic growth since the end of the civil war. Investments in infrastructure, including roads, railways, airports, and tourism facilities, have supported the sector’s expansion. Tax incentives and a “One-Stop Unit” have been introduced to attract foreign investment. The National Tourism Strategy prioritizes regional development and supports small enterprises, ensuring tourism benefits are equitably distributed. Aligning tourism development with reconciliation goals reflects a long-term commitment to rebuilding the economy and strengthening social cohesion.
Tourism in Sri Lanka has proven to be a powerful tool for peacebuilding by fostering reconciliation, supporting economic recovery, and encouraging cross-cultural exchange. Government policies, community-based initiatives, and international partnerships have created a sustainable and inclusive tourism development framework. Ensuring that tourism remains equitable and environmentally responsible will be key to maintaining peace and stability in Sri Lanka over the long term.
Manjushka Savithri Gunathilaka, Highlight 21/2025: Can tourism be a pathway to peace in post-conflict societies? Peacebuilding and prosperity in Sri Lanka, 15 April 2025, available at www.meig.ch
The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the authors and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva.