Policy Responses to Extreme Weather Events

---

The torrential rains and resulting floods in many parts of the country in recent weeks are undoubtedly the result of an extreme weather event; most probably linked to climate change. As a small country, Sri Lanka can do little to change the conditions that are at the root of climate change, though we cannot shirk our social responsibility to contribute to global effort to arrest the worsening trend. On the other hand, as a country, we have no choice but  take all measures necessary to ensure safety and well-being of people who are likely to get affected by extreme weather events like the one that we experienced recently. 

It is natural for the relevant state institutions and other stakeholders to provide various types of assistance and humanitarian relief to people affected by floods and landslides. But, what is equally important is to rehabilitate and resettle people who are displaced as a result  of natural disasters. The matter however, does not end here. What is perhaps critical is the issue of disaster preparations.

Disaster preparedness means not only measures necessary to cope with a disaster and its aftermath but also advanced planning to prevent the adverse impacts of disaster on people, property and other private and public assets. The purpose of this article is to outline land use and settlement planning aspects of disaster preparedness, particularly in view of the recent landslides and floods in the country.

The threat of landslides and floods is not new to our country, though their intensity seems to have increased in recent decades. Sri Lanka being a country blessed with a high level of rainfall, particularly in the South Western region where most of the mountain ranges and catchment areas are located, it is natural for the areas concerned to have a higher risk of landslides and flooding. This situation can become worse due to haphazard or unplanned human activities.

The only way to address this issue is, to minimize adverse effects of climate change and extreme weather events like those that the country had experienced in the recent weeks  to adopt a rational approach to utilization of natural resources such as land, forests and water. 

It is common knowledge that a steady population growth coupled with populist policies after independence resulted in the haphazard use of land and other resources in many parts of the country. While the landless people continued to encroach on both public and private land. Successive governments often came forward to regularize such encroachments. Moreover, small family holdings continued to be subdivided into minute parcels of land, even on steep mountain slopes and highly flood prone low-lying areas. Since all these happened with minimal state intervention, authorities often turned a blind eye, allowing people to build houses and cultivate seasonal crops like vegetables on lands in environmentally hazardous areas. This appeared to be an almost inevitable sequence of events in view of the heavy emphasis placed on small holders, agriculture, increasing population pressure on land and the enormous public investments that would have been required to establish well-planned housing settlements in all parts of the country. As is well known, unlike in urban areas, local authorities in the countryside have almost no control over or technical capacity to guide housing or any other construction activities. People could build any type of house wherever they wished with no guidance from technically qualified professionals. Similarly, people have been free to convert any plot of land to a vegetable plot with no attention being paid to the possibility of soil erosion or land slides. Similarly, many people have built houses in flood-prone, low-lying areas. A major flood can obviously wash them away and at times resulting in the deaths of their family members. Once again, the establishment of housing settlements on higher ground is the obvious alternative but this requires decisive state intervention backed by significant resources commitments. 


Disaster preparedness means not only measures necessary to cope with a disaster and its aftermath but also advanced planning to prevent the adverse impacts of disaster on people, property and other private and public assets


A key lesson that we can learn from the present and past natural disasters is, that the measures to prevent or minimize the damage are as important as what is naturally done  to alter a disaster to assist and rehabilitate disaster victims. In fact, preventive measures can have the potential to not only reduce the human cost during disasters significantly, but also substantially curtail the economic burden on the state and the community including the affected families. 
So, disaster mitigation is not an isolated state responsibility that can be confined to a specialized government agency. It is a function that needs to be integrated into a wider planning process that transcends many sectors such as land use planning, settlement planning, housing, social planning, and livelihoods. In other words, what is involved is coordinated inter-sectoral action aimed at minimizing human and economic costs of major natural disasters like floods, Tsunamis and landslides. Our experience with the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (IOT) demonstrates this in no uncertain terms. While the 2004 Tsunami was not an anticipated disaster, it may be unreasonable to argue that we should have been better prepared to face it. Yet, it clearly showed that haphazard development and unplanned human settlements in the coastal areas in the recent past exacerbated the damage and the cost of the disaster. 

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami showed that the country should be prepared to face a similar extreme event in the future. Imposition of a buffer zone and the prevention of people displaced by the Tsunami to return to their original habitats are steps taken to minimize the human and economic cost during a future Tsunami. Yet, practical considerations by the authorities as well as by some victim families have encouraged many of the latter to return to the coast. This is an issue that needs serious consideration by policy makers.



Both the Tsunami and more recent floods and landslides show that an integrated approach to planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction activities is critical for minimizing adverse impacts, both during and after a disaster. While most external organizations, both state and non-state, tend to treat victims as individual beneficiaries, positive outcomes are always better when they are encouraged to act as organized communities. So, community building is as important as providing support to families and individuals based on their specific needs. What is equally important is the integration of local communities, in particular the ones newly established after a disaster, with local institutions such as local councils and region-based government agencies. Institutional integration is a critical factor that has a bearing on the sustainability of community infrastructure, access to services, livelihoods and quality of life. The issues mentioned above remain largely unaddressed in Sri Lanka even after ten years following the disaster.