In the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, assessing Sri Lanka’s economic exposure to climate risks and climate-induced disasters indicates the need for a strategic shift towards risk-prevention investments and improved disaster management mechanisms.
In an interview with The Sunday Morning Business, Economist and Climate Frontiers Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Specialist Rohan Cooray highlighted the need to prioritise last-mile communication in early warning systems, mainstream climate risk into socioeconomic and spatial development planning, and scale risk-transfer mechanisms to reduce the country’s economic losses.
Following are excerpts:
How do you view the overall progress in Sri Lanka when it comes to investing in disaster management technology?
In terms of overall progress, we do see advances over the last few decades or so. For instance, Sri Lanka has various early warning issuance systems for different disasters. The National Building Research Organisation (NBRO) has its own automated rain gauge system, which is used to monitor rainfall in specific locations.
There are proper landslide warning systems in place as well, which is an advanced setup. The question, however, is how the information generated by the NBRO’s automated rain gauge system reaches the intended user at local level, which is referred to as last-mile communication, and it must be ensured that it adheres to the standard operating procedures developed by the Disaster Management Centre (DMC).
In terms of floods, Sri Lanka has 103 river basins, but at most, 22 of them are highly prone to floods. Out of those 22, we must especially focus on the Kelani, Kalu, Nilwala, Gin, Walawe, and Attanagalu Oya basins.
Again, there is a highly sophisticated river water level gauge system run by the Irrigation Department, which uses automated systems to measure water levels in some of the rivers, especially in basins like those of the Kelani River and Kalu Ganga.
However, the issue arises again with dissemination. The Irrigation Department operates a centralised flood monitoring mechanism. By monitoring flood water levels and catchment area rainfall, it issues technical early warnings, categorised as Major, Moderate, and Minor Flood Levels. This information is provided to the relevant authorities along the river.
Yet, I do not see a specific mechanism for communicating this information at the grama niladhari level. That is an area we need to address. The Irrigation Department is a technical agency, and its mandate is to monitor and provide relevant information.
The dissemination part falls to the DMC. The DMC releases the early warnings from the technical agencies to the public through different channels – for example, a cell broadcasting mechanism and an intergovernmental communication system. It is also connected to the Police communication system, 119, and the Police radio communication system. Similarly, for tsunamis, there are early warning systems.
While any number of alerts can be issued, if the intended user at the village level does not receive the message, there is a fundamental flaw in the last-mile early warning communication.
However, it is not solely about having an advanced early warning system; the public also has a responsibility to heed the warnings and take necessary actions, which often does not happen in Sri Lanka.
Most technical agencies’ early warning systems have the human resources and access to advanced technology for modelling and other sophisticated processes, but there are certain limitations. For example, we sometimes lack a real-time monitoring system for rainfall, though we do have one for floods and landslides, which leads to reliance on regional meteorological service providers.
If we had our own Doppler radar system, which is a ground-mounted, active remote sensing system, we could provide real-time situational updates. However, even a Doppler radar does not provide a seasonal forecast, as it only reflects the current situation.
I am suggesting that we could connect with more advanced satellites, such as the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Some Sri Lankan institutions are already connected with these space agencies.
However, another underlying issue I have observed is that the hard sciences are not easily understood by the public. For example, if the Meteorology Department forecasts a wind speed of 70 miles per hour in the next 24 hours, a layperson may not grasp what that means in practical terms, or analyse the scale of the impact.
This is an important area that must be addressed, translating technical information into a language that is accessible to the general public. This, I believe, will improve our advanced early warning systems. We need to change from hazard-based warnings to impact-based warnings in the near future.
Given your experience integrating climate risk into national planning, where do you see the biggest structural gaps in Sri Lanka’s development planning process that continue to create major economic exposure to disasters?
In order to successfully mainstream climate risk into our development planning process, it is necessary to recognise the current system where each sector examines how climate risks affect its own domain.
Certain sectors are highly exposed to climate change, including agriculture, livestock, fisheries, health, education, water supply, export agriculture, irrigation systems, urban planning and human settlements, biodiversity, marine and coastal ecosystems, and tourism and recreation. We need to determine how to integrate climate risk into planning processes across all levels.
It is necessary to first assess whether there is an enabling environment for mainstreaming climate risk into development planning. A fundamental requirement is more reliable climate projections for Sri Lanka, which must be based on global models downscaled to the national context. The Department of Meteorology should publish these climate projections for different future scenarios and time periods.
If we do not understand the future climate, especially rainfall and temperature patterns, we cannot understand the future climate risk and, hence, cannot identify appropriate solutions. Climate risk is geography-specific and location-specific. As a result, the solution must be customised according to the sector and the location. This is how we must mainstream climate risk into our development planning.
The next concern is how and what tools and solutions can be used. I identify five major and broad solutions for mainstreaming climate into development planning.
As a part of development and planning, we need to examine solutions across different sectors through different lenses. We need to identify policy and planning-based solutions. The second solution is to ensure that infrastructure is both green and grey, moving away from ‘brown’ (or unsustainable) solutions.
The third solution is identifying nature-based solutions, as structural solutions are not needed for every problem arising from climate change. For instance, to address urban waterlogging issues, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or nature-based solutions to reduce water flow can be employed.
The fourth area is to identify climate finance solutions to fund the implementation of green and grey, as well as nature-based, solutions. This includes accessing concessional loans, green bonds, and climate bonds, as well as funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Adaptation Fund, or the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
While many funds are available, it is necessary to have a green investment proposal that is climate responsive. Without integrating climate responsiveness into investment plans, it is not possible to invest in climate risk reduction activities.
The final solution is to identify Research and Development (R&D) solutions that will support the overall resilience of the sector itself and ultimately contribute to reducing climate risk.
What is the economic need to justify a shift from response-focused spending to risk prevention investments?
Failing to invest in reducing disaster or climate risk means experiencing more disasters, which in turn leads to greater economic losses and damage to the economy.
A 2018 World Bank study estimated the average annual economic losses due to disasters in Sri Lanka to be approximately $ 314–316 million, which are moderate figures. Due to failing to invest in prevention, a moderate disaster, such as a river flood, could cost about $ 300 million. A widespread drought could also incur costs between $ 180 million and $ 300 million.
We must reduce average annual losses due to climate change. Our goal should be to utilise this approximately $ 300 million for development activities, not for relief work. If we face a disaster every year, the damage and necessary repair costs, though perhaps less than 1% or even 0.25% of the GDP, still represent a waste of money spent on supporting recurrent annual events.
Therefore, we need to shift our focus to investing in risk reduction activities rather than just response. Investing in multi-hazard early warning systems, for example, is a risk reduction activity that mitigates the risk of a specific disaster. Similarly, investing in climate change mitigation acts or low-carbon emission transportation activities reduces risk.
Thus, we need to ensure our investments are green, supporting the reduction of greenhouse gases and focused on adapting to extreme weather to enhance resilience, which in turn enhances the resilience of the financial economy. While currently, much of our investment is not climate responsive, many projects can easily be transformed into climate resilience investments.
You contributed to the National Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme, established in 2016 with the support of the National Insurance Trust Fund (NITF). What reforms are necessary today to scale risk-transfer mechanisms and reduce the public sector’s fiscal burden after major disasters?
Currently, it mainly provides reconstruction insurance, covering only the replacement cost. It does not provide for or introduce the Build Back Better concept. What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the recovery process enhances the individual’s or community’s resilience to withstand the next disaster. This means focusing on rebuilding stronger.
We should also explore parametric insurance or non-parametric insurance for different sectors. Certain sectors, such as agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and export agriculture, are highly sensitive to climate change, for which we need to identify and implement parametric or non-insurance schemes. This is a subject that has been discussed but not yet fully implemented.
At the same time, we need to ensure we are actively investing in reducing the risk, which will in turn lower our insurance premiums. If a region is regularly affected by disasters, reinsurers will classify it as a high-risk area, leading to higher premiums. If a location is often affected by disasters, it will also affect Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) because investors require insurance. If the insurance cost is high due to a high damage and loss percentage, investors may be less interested in investing in a high-risk location.
We need to understand the spatial distribution of climate risk in Sri Lanka, which is highly varied. This understanding will allow us to develop tailored insurance schemes and identify potential investments.
Furthermore, we must utilise an evidence-based planning process across all sectors. While some sectors, like energy, are very focused and evidence-based, others are not 100% so. We need reliable data and information to make necessary decisions that will reduce climate risk, mitigate disaster impact, and ultimately improve the resilience of the community and the country’s financial economy.
We need to recognise that dealing with climate change is no longer optional, it is essential. Previously, the impacts of climate change felt distant. Now, the impacts are direct and personal. They are inside your house, so to speak. We need to act fast before the damage becomes irreversible.