Cyclone Ditwah has brought Sri Lanka’s disaster preparedness under serious scrutiny and resulted in blistering attacks on the administration for a weak disaster response, including delayed warnings and relief distribution. More than two decades after the 2004 tsunami, there still are serious gaps to be addressed.
The scale of the disaster was unprecedented and unpredictable. However, there were resources to issue early warnings in local languages and evacuate people early to minimise the impact. But even till date there are people claiming to have not received any relief.
Since its creation in 2005, the country's Disaster Management Centre (DMC) has evolved and currently possesses a robust multi-hazard National Early Warning System for Sri Lanka. The DMC is the primary agency responsible for coordinated response and the National Disaster Relief Services Centre for the actual distribution of relief goods. In 2023, the DMC made an important policy shift by adopting the National Disaster Management Plan 2023-30, moving away from a response-based approach towards a proactive and integrated risk management strategy.
This year dawned with the appointment of a 25-member presidential task force (PTF) for rebuilding Sri Lanka, mandated to undertake strategic decisions, resolve cross-ministerial issues, and guide major funding and reconstruction choices in key rebuilding activities. The tasks include establishing digital data systems and decision support mechanisms, and improving communication and stakeholder engagement. The PTF, which has an enormous responsibility, should learn from the unforgettable post-tsunami lessons as well as current realities.
There was the 2005 Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure—a temporary mechanism established to coordinate relief distribution and reconstruction efforts in the coastal areas of north and east Sri Lanka.
In March 2005, a concept note developed by LIRNEAsia, a Colombo-based research institute, famously called for designing an all-hazard public warning system in the tsunami’s aftermath. It stated: “Prompt action to create an effective national early warning system is the best memorial we can build to the 40,000 valuable lives that were swept away for the lack of a few minutes of warning and a little awareness,” and added, “Public warning is a system, not a technology.”
Much water had flowed since then. But 21 years later, Sri Lanka is back to the drawing boards to create systems and processes for post-disaster rebuilding.
When the tsunami struck, Sri Lanka was unprepared. From disaster communications and relief distribution to aid flow management, it called for new policies and mechanisms. This is no longer the case, with a comprehensive disaster management strategy and mechanisms in place.
Fast forward to 2026, the foremost reality is Sri Lanka’s shaky economic situation. Following the 2022 economic crisis, the country is under a restructuring programme scripted by the IMF and has no room to navigate. It is in this backdrop that opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has urged the IMF to relax the stringent conditions of the ongoing extended fund facility to enable the government to prioritise urgent relief, recovery and livelihood restoration. Premadasa also urged the government to withdraw the current budget and present a fresh disaster-focused plan. Meanwhile, plans are afoot to apply for relief from the UN’s new loss and damage fund, designed to help climate-vulnerable developing nations deal with severe and unavoidable climate change impacts.
The Global Climate Risk Index has consistently ranked Sri Lanka among the top 10 countries most vulnerable to extreme weather events. In 2021, the Index for Risk Mapping ranked the island ‘high’ for catastrophe risk. This too is an unavoidable reality.
The World Bank estimated the total damage caused by Cyclone Ditwah at $4.1 billion—4 percent of Sri Lanka’s 2024 national income. All 25 districts were impacted, while the central regions suffered more than 1,200 landslides. The devastation rendered almost 70 percent of the rail network unusable, necessitating an extensive reconstruction.
A comprehensive disaster management mechanism would include transparent tracking of aid flows in conformity with global standards. This is essential to prevent undue influence on humanitarian operations, be they political, economic or military. Integrity of the process is considered as vital as efficiency.
Transparent aid flow management with room for participatory decision making, transparent procurement and community participation are key aspects of recognised disaster management mechanisms. Sri Lanka must strengthen its surge capacity, ensuring it can rapidly expand resources and operations when faced with an emergency.
Disasters open the floodgates to corruption and not just aid, procurement processes should be transparent and accountable too. The International Aid Transparency Initiative is a case in point, which made aid information available to people in a timely, comparable and accessible manner. Sri Lankans still recall a financial and political scandal in 2005 when funds intended for tsunami relief were purportedly diverted to a private bank account to benefit one district. Popularly called ‘Helping Hambantota’, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa's home district, it turned into a case study of aid-related corruption.
It is mandatory to avoid any repeats and to retain public trust. A comprehensive and accessible system will be invaluable for Sri Lanka and must be prioritised.
At present, Sri Lanka relies on multiple tools to monitor humanitarian aid. Examples include International Organization for Migration’s Displacement Tracking Matrix, Relief Web’s interface for tracking population movement, and UN’s Financial Tracking Service. They specialise in supply chain management to track physical distribution of goods, while systems like Core Humanitarian Standard focuses on needs, resource allocations and transparent delivery, especially post disaster.
Aid flow information must be publicly available not only for transparency, but as a practice that benefits the public. Ensuring transparency, offering real-time information on transactions and their movement—overall commitments, disbursements, target sectors and the criteria for prioritisation are necessary. People look for equitable treatment—not the kind offered via viral videos of victim families ceremonially receiving death certificates.
Dilrukshi Handunnetti | Award-winning journalist and lawyer; founder and director of Colombo-based Center for Investigative Reporting
(Views are personal)
(dilrukshi@cir.lk)