Post-Tsunami Recovery: Issues and Challenges in Sri Lanka
This draft report examines the impact of the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka on 26 December 2004. It attempts to take stock of the reconstruction and recovery activities undertaken so far, make policy recommendations, and to identify challenges ahead. Three major lessons from this report also apply to other disaster reconstruction efforts worldwide:
- Move fast with relief efforts.
- Provide immediate cash payments to victims.
- Expect reconstruction costs to soar.
A team of researchers at the Institute of Policy Studies in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the University of Melbourne, Australia, has jointly prepared the report. The report covers these areas:
- livelihood-related cash payments to households;
- assistance for rebuilding houses;
- titles to new houses;
- buffer zone rules;
- early warning and disaster management systems;
- coordination of donor assisted activities; and
- macroeconomic policy issues.
Looking ahead, overall macroeconomic management circumstances and policies will be critical to the reconstruction’s success. The tsunami hit at a time of serious macroeconomic imbalances and, paradoxically, helped to mask them for a time. The imbalances are now re-emerging, fuelling inflation, lowering the real value of aid funds, constraining the government’s fiscal capacity, and adversely affecting reconstruction.
The report highlights the need for greater preparedness to cope with natural disasters. Building on the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act presented to parliament in February 2005, a scientifically sound and financially feasible disaster management system geared to coping with multiple hazards must be formulated. Problems with aid utilization and accountability highlighted by the Auditor General’s Department must be urgently addressed.
ADBI has now published this as an online and hard copy Research Paper. ADBI has also prepared an Indonesian version of this paper to facilitate information sharing about post-tsunami recovery issues between Sri Lanka and Indonesia. To extend this work, ADBI is supporting parallel studies on post-tsunami recovery efforts in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Some tables in the original discussion paper have been updated. Based on comments received, the authors updated some information.
Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 423.3KB| 53 pages ].
Post a Comment | We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting. |
Comment(s)
There are [2] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment. - Dushi Weerakoon, one of the co-authors
(posted 31 March 2006 / 11:43:50 AM)
In response to the comment below:
Besides funeral expenses, etc. a cash grant of $50 per month and $3.75 cash and food ration were given to all affected households (for approximately 4 months). For residents outside the buffer zone, if a house is more than 40% damaged, a grant of $2,500 is given in 4 instalments, based on progress. If a house is less than 40% damaged, then a grant of $1,000 is provided, disbursed in 2 stages. For residents within the buffer zone, the government planned to assist not only landowners, but all residents (including encroachers) with some form of housing. This was estimated to require around 50,000 permanent houses. Further quite considerable details on government handouts are contained in the report itself.
- ken bacon
(posted 18 December 2005 / 06:57:36 PM)
This chapter notes that the government immediately paid money for funeral expenses, livelihood and cooking utensils. What additional government compensation has been provided? I am particularly interested in how the relatively generous post earthquake compensation program in Pakistan compares to government compensation for loss following the tsunami.
|
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
|
|