In the wake of Cyclone Ditwah, the government set up a management committee made up entirely of businesspeople, with no women, nobody with disaster-response experience, and little regard for international frameworks it has signed into, which require at-risk groups to take public leadership roles during emergencies.
The scale of the decisions now facing officials has fuelled debate about why inclusive governance must sit at the centre of recovery. Communities understand their own needs better than distant business figures, and their perspectives should be represented in meaningful decision-making roles.
In an article published by the Centre for a Smart Future (CSF), Co-founder Anushka Wijesinha and Research Associate Stephanie Nicole note that women are 14 times more likely to die than men in disasters.
The article states, “They also face compounded risk because they serve as primary caregivers and prioritise the safety of children, partners, and the elderly over their own. Climate shifts have exacerbated the vulnerabilities they experience, with women now comprising 80% of those displaced by climate-related disasters.”
Frameworks on Paper, Gaps in Practice
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) encourages disaster governance, from preparedness to recovery, and sets out guiding principles and priorities for nations. Sri Lanka adopted this framework in 2015 at the United Nations World Conference in Japan. Wijesinha and Nicole point out that “Among SFDRR’s key actions is the requirement that at-risk groups take public leadership roles during response and reconstruction.”
In addition, it recommends dedicated budget allocations for these groups to prevent ad hoc practices that have weakened recovery efforts in the past.
CSF reports roughly 1.2 million women, 522,000 children, and 263,000 of the elderly were impacted by Ditwah. The management committee is made up of people of whom, “11 members are men, and all non-government seats are held by business personalities with no known expertise in complex national development projects, disaster management, and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations.”
Lessons Ignored From Past Crises
“When the 2004 tsunami struck, nearly 66% of those who died in Ampara alone were women,” say Wijesinha and Nicole. “The number of women impacted by Ditwah is more than 50% of the total population affected.” The biggest concentration of those affected is in Colombo’s Kolonnawa Divisional Secretariat, home to more than 150,000 people. Much of the city’s informal workforce lives there, many of them women. They have little social protection, face malnutrition, and are in debt.
They cite the Presidential Task Force on Economic Revival and Poverty Eradication as another example of a lack of representation and non inclusive governance. This task force was established during the COVID-19 pandemic to address poverty, support small businesses, and empower rural communities. However, according to Wijesinha and Nicole, “The group’s representation did not mirror those needs.” Non-government seats were held by leaders of large corporations, with no place for small and medium-sized enterprises, community representatives, or people with expertise in poverty and other forms of vulnerability.
CSF reemphasises, “Research on disaster recovery demonstrates that inclusive decision-making produces effective outcomes.” Grounding recovery in recognised frameworks such as the SFDRR, which stress a whole-of-society approach, helps anchor the response in principles that support fairness and credibility.
A Call To Remake the Committee
They warn that development partners pledging much-needed funds should not look past these problems, or risk being seen as going along with them. “The World Bank and Asian Development Bank approaches to disaster risk management and recovery emphasise inclusive approaches in their own frameworks and their past projects in post-disaster contexts, specifically around gender.”
Bilateral and multilateral development partners must insist on legal mandates for inclusive participation, not just rhetoric. They should require open and traceable handling of funds, with strong public checks, and back community-led recovery where affected people have the power to make decisions. They should also insist on targetted support for vulnerable groups, based on data and clear needs, while making sure the rush to act does not replace proper consultation.
The appointed committee may be able to mobilise funds, but it appears ill-equipped to set priorities and oversee how money is spent. Wijesinha and Nicole call on the government to, “Re-constitute any management or governing committee to be more representative of the country, and reflect the interdisciplinary needs in a response of this complexity and magnitude.”