Sri Lanka’s economic recovery has never been a straight road. Just as the country begins to find its footing after years of crisis, unexpected shocks remind us how fragile that progress still is. Cyclone Ditwah is one such shock. Its impact on infrastructure, livelihoods and public finances cannot be brushed aside, and pretending that existing economic targets remain untouched would be both unrealistic and irresponsible.

Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe’s comments this week on the need to revise targets under the IMF Extended Fund Facility deserve careful attention. He did not speak of abandoning commitments or rolling back reforms. Instead, he made a far more reasonable point. When circumstances change, policies and targets must change with them. That principle is accepted not only by Sri Lanka but by the IMF itself.

The fifth review of the IMF programme was originally expected to be completed by mid-December. The cyclone made that impossible. The annual budget had been prepared before the scale of the damage was known, and new spending needs have now emerged. Reconstruction, relief and recovery cannot be funded on paper alone. They require real money, and that reality must be reflected in revised fiscal targets.

This is where sound judgment matters. Economic programmes are built on projections and assumptions. When those assumptions are overtaken by events, stubbornly clinging to them does not demonstrate discipline. It demonstrates denial. Dr. Weerasinghe’s explanation of why the review was postponed shows an understanding of this basic truth. Time is needed to properly assess the damage, rework projections and agree on targets that make sense in the changed environment.

Importantly, Sri Lanka is not approaching these discussions from the position it occupied during the Covid-19 period. Then, the country lacked debt sustainability and had little credibility with lenders. Today, after painful adjustments and difficult negotiations, that credibility has been partially restored. The Governor’s reference to the Rapid Financing Instrument reflects this change. Because debt sustainability has been regained, Sri Lanka can now access short-term support without entering fresh, drawn-out debt agreements.

This progress should not be taken lightly. Official foreign reserves are expected to approach $ 8 billion by the end of the year. That is no small achievement for a country that not long ago was struggling to pay for essential imports. But maintaining this progress requires careful, informed decisions, not rushed political choices or fear of how flexibility might be perceived.

The Government must therefore approach the upcoming IMF discussions with clarity and confidence. Seeking revised targets in light of a natural disaster is not an act of weakness. It is a responsible response to reality. What would be dangerous is attempting to meet outdated targets by cutting necessary spending or delaying recovery efforts, simply to appear compliant. Similarly, not spending the budget allocated to state institutions which provide services to the public, only to use the unused funds to pad national rupee reserves for political posturing, will also not help.

At the same time, transparency with the public is essential. People have endured higher taxes, reduced subsidies and tighter budgets in the name of economic stabilisation. They deserve an honest explanation of why targets may change and how those changes serve the broader goal of recovery. Clear communication will help prevent misinformation and avoid the suspicion that flexibility equals backtracking.

Sri Lanka’s recent past offers painful lessons. Time and again, expert warnings were ignored, and political expediency was placed above sound economics, and governance weakened. The result was a collapse. The country cannot afford to repeat that mistake. When the Central Bank and other professionals argue for recalibration based on evidence, the Government must listen.

Economic recovery is not about ticking boxes or satisfying timelines. It is about making decisions that protect stability while responding to real-world challenges. Cyclone Ditwah has changed the landscape. The response to it should be guided by expert advice, practical wisdom, and an honest assessment of what the country can and cannot do. Flexibility now, handled wisely, may well be the difference between sustaining recovery and slipping back into crisis.