Sri Lanka’s disaster profile is dominated by recurrent hydro-meteorological hazards, with floods and droughts standing out as the most impactful events on lives, livelihoods and property. The Global Climate Risk Index 2019 positioned Sri Lanka among the top three countries most affected by weather-related events, ranking second in fatalities and economic losses for 2017 (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2021; Robielos et al., 2020). Notable events such as Cyclone Roanu in May 2016, which brought the highest rainfall in 18 years and caused flooding in 24 out of 25 districts, and Cyclone Mora in 2017, which triggered floods and landslides in 15 southern districts and affected key export crops and paddy cultivation, further underscore the country’s vulnerability (Katyaini et al., 2021). Although the damage is yet to be assessed, according to the available statistics of the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) Sri Lanka, it is reported that the cyclone “Ditwah” made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025, affecting approximately 1.7 million individuals and 490,000 families, resulting in 646 fatalities and 174 people reported missing. Physical damage is estimated at more than US$4.1bn, including severe losses to houses about 107,000 houses completely destroyed and 101,055 sustaining partial damage, as well as damage to highways, railways, agriculture, livestock, fisheries, the environment, industries and livelihoods. More than 108 roads, around 250 km, and 40 bridges were damaged or destroyed disrupting all the 25 districts of the country (Skanthakumar).
Disaster risk governance (DRG) is broadly understood as a complex and multifaceted process that includes the institutions, mechanisms, policies, legal systems and organisational arrangements necessary to direct, co-ordinate and regulate disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities across various levels of governance and society (Assembly, 2016; Planitz, 2015; UNDRR, 2020). It requires both horizontal and vertical co-ordination among a wide range of stakeholders such as government authorities, public officials, private sector actors, media and civil society who collaborate at local, national and regional scales to address and minimise disaster and climate-related risks (Program, 2013; Rao, 2013). Priority Two of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) specifically highlights the need to strengthen DRG as a key condition for achieving its objectives. Moreover, the SFDRR stresses the significance of inclusive, whole-of-society participation, promoting empowerment and equitable involvement while giving particular consideration to vulnerable groups that are disproportionately impacted by disasters (Imperiale and Vanclay, 2021). Recognised for its broad scope, worldwide adoption and practical implementation, the SDGs highlight the importance of collaborative efforts to achieve DRR-related targets.
Effective DRG is essential for minimising the human, economic and environmental impacts of natural and man-made hazards. In Sri Lanka, the legal, policy and institutional landscape for disaster management underwent significant transformation following the catastrophic 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Recognising the need for a co-ordinated and robust disaster response mechanism, the government enacted the Disaster Management Act (DMA) in 2005, which stands as the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s current DRG framework. The establishment of the National Council for Disaster Management (NCDM), the supreme decision-making body headed by the President of the country, and the DMC, which works as the co-ordinating body for disaster management in Sri Lanka, was significant. Apart from that, the National Policy on Disaster Management (2013), the governing policy, the Road Map for Safer Sri Lanka (2005), the Sri Lanka National Disaster Management Plan for 2013–2017, the SL Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme for 2014–2018, National Emergency Operational Plan 2017 and the National Disaster Management Plan 2023–2030 are the main policy documents that leads to implementation of the policy. DRG in Sri Lanka also aligns with the principles of international frameworks that play a crucial role in globalising the discourse on DRR and DRG, particularly regarding their application and the binding commitments of state parties, institutions and individuals. SFDRR, SDGs and PACC are especially significant in this context.
Furthermore, to facilitate the implementation of national disaster management policy, various other institutions were established, including the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights in 2006, line ministries, co-ordinating committees from the national level to the village level, District and Divisional Secretariats, the Disaster Relief Service Centre, the Meteorological Department, the National Building Research Organization, the Sri Lanka Low Land Development Corporation, the Geological Survey and Mining Bureau, Provincial Councils (PCs), Local Government Authorities (LGAs), government ministries and departments and the Irrigation Department which manages river flooding. In addition to government institutions, the non-government sector, the private sector, media and religious organisations are also involved in the process.
Sri Lanka’s current DRG structure is built on a centralised legal and institutional framework established under the DMA No. 13 of 2005. At the apex is the NCDM, which provides overall policy direction, while the DMC functions as the main co-ordinating body. The system operates through multilevel arrangements, including the central government, the Provincial Council and the Local Government level. In addition, district, divisional and community-level disaster management committees ensure vertical integration from national to local levels. It also promotes collaboration among government agencies, the military, the private sector, NGOs, media, religious organisations and community organisations, in alignment with global frameworks such as the Sendai Framework (Siriwardana et al., 2018). However, despite a well-established institutional structure, challenges remain in terms of co-ordination, resource allocation and effective implementation at the national to operational levels. For example, during the Ditwah, the existing mechanism showed deficiencies, including a lack of co-ordination and clarity of responsibilities among the officials and institutions, that causing multiple agencies’ involvement without unified command and delayed relief efforts due to overlapping responsibilities. A not-so-strong early warning system led to communication gaps, particularly in peripheral areas of the country, resulting in high damage and displacement. There were also gaps in preparedness, especially at the village-level disaster management committees, lack of dynamism in compensation rates, issues in reforming existing laws and regulations, challenges in accommodating large numbers in welfare centres, poor drainage systems, illegal construction and poor housing standards and a large number of houses were destroyed or damaged due to a lack of enforcement of resilient building codes, as well as a lack of public accountability, among many others.
In this context, Sri Lanka’s existing DRG structure requires reforms not only to cater to the current disaster scenarios of the country but also to solve the governance issues that remain unsolved for a long period. Among the possible reforms, the following can be considered priorities: strengthening the co-ordinating mechanisms from the central government level to the Provincial Council and to the local government level; developing and co-ordinating all-inclusive plans (government, civil society, academia, private sector, practitioners and public); preparing short-term, medium-term and long-term plans; ensuring equal consideration of all aspects of the disaster cycle (focusing not only on response but also on prevention, mitigation, preparedness and recovery); introducing amendments to the DMA; exploring available opportunities and maximising the utilisation of existing strengths; enhancing the capacities of officials and minimising their vulnerability; incorporating technical support into the DRG process, especially for the DMC; clearly defining roles and responsibilities of institutions, officials and the public; strengthening communication among the three tiers of governance; formalising NCDM meetings and enhancing political representation; providing legal mandates to PCs and LGAs; introducing legal provisions related to land acquisition and evacuation; expediting court proceedings related to DRG; clarifying issues related to search and rescue operations, such as missing persons; establishing a strong database covering information from infants to adults, including pregnant and lactating mothers, school children and disabled elderly people; ensuring consistency in compensation rates; raising awareness among the public and officials; introducing a consistent policy; and establishing an independent authority to handle DRG-related matters.
