Photo courtesy of AFP

When calamity strikes, the immediate imperative is saving lives, restoring essential services and delivering relief to those who have lost everything. But once the dust settles – literally and metaphorically – a far more enduring task begins: rebuilding communities, infrastructure and livelihoods. For a nation like Sri Lanka, where successive disasters have exposed institutional vulnerabilities, how that reconstruction is conducted will matter for generations.

In this context, rebuilding must be more than returning to the pre-disaster status quo. It must be underpinned by accountability, transparency and sustainability. Crucially, these are not just moral imperatives; they are legal obligations.

Legal framework for disaster management

The principal legal basis for disaster response and recovery is the Disaster Management Act (DMA) of 2005. The Act established institutional structures: the National Council for Disaster Management (NCDM), the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) and, where needed, technical advisory committees. The law empowers these bodies to prepare a national disaster management plan, coordinate emergency response, and oversee relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation.[1] Under the DMA, recovery and reconstruction are not ad hoc or discretionary activities; they form part of a legally mandated disaster management cycle. The Act also defines the scope of disasters covered ranging from floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, landslides, industrial hazards and coastal erosion to epidemics and more.

The DMA allows for the declaration of a state of disaster when the severity of a disaster or impending disaster exceeds the normal administrative capacity, thereby enabling expedited or extraordinary relief and reconstruction operations.

Thus legally Sri Lanka has a statutory framework that contemplates not only disaster preparedness and immediate response but also relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Alongside the NCDM and DMC, the DMA requires that every ministry, public department and public corporation prepares its own disaster management plan, anticipating how each sector will respond in the event of disaster, including rehabilitation and reconstruction duties.

In effect, the institutional design aims to ensure a coordinated, multi-sectoral approach rather than isolated or fragmented intervention. The DMA’s preamble and sections underscore the government’s duty to safeguard “human life, property and the environment of Sri Lanka … from the consequences of disasters … by … centrally coordinated committees and institutions” meant to give effect to national policy and plan.

Therefore the Act provides a strong legal basis for disaster management that includes reconstruction not just relief but as an essential component.

However, legal frameworks alone do not guarantee fair, effective and trustworthy recovery. In practice, several systemic issues have repeatedly undermined the goals of accountability, transparency and sustainability.

Although the DMA provides for compensation and financial support in disaster aftermath, public visibility into how funds are allocated, how rebuilding contracts are awarded and how compensation is disbursed remains weak.

While the law envisages relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation as part of disaster response, the Act does not mandate public disclosure of spending, contracts or progress. The publicly available DMA text contains no explicit requirement for proactive transparency or an open data disclosure obligation tied to reconstruction contracts or financial flows.

This legal absence of a transparency requirement leaves room for opacity, which in a post-disaster context can lead to misallocation, delays, favoritism or misuse. Without mandatory disclosure civil society, communities or media cannot effectively track or question where resources go, who they benefit or whether reconstruction is being done equitably and efficiently.

Although the DMA establishes institutions (NCDM and DMC) and mandates planning by ministries and public entities, it does not embed independent, mandatory and enforceable oversight mechanisms into the reconstruction process.

For example, there is no provision in the Act for a permanent or ad-hoc independent reconstruction oversight commission, no mandatory requirement for external audits, no public audit reporting tied to reconstruction nor legally guaranteed community oversight or participation. Affected communities have no statutory right to transparent reporting or to challenge reconstruction decisions or compensation allocations.

Emergency or “state of disaster” declarations tend to grant higher discretion to executive powers, which might lead to normal procurement safeguards being bypassed. Without post-disaster accountability frameworks, such discretion can become fertile ground for mismanagement or corruption.

The current legal structure does not guarantee meaningful public participation of affected communities in decision-making, especially regarding reconstruction, resettlement, land use planning or future development. There are no binding provisions requiring public consultation before major reconstruction decisions, no legally mandated grievance or redress mechanisms for affected persons, and no guarantee that communities have input into reconstruction plans.

As a result, vulnerable communities may remain sidelined; resettlement or relocation decisions may be made without their consent, and reconstruction may fail to meet their actual needs.

Although the DMA’s objectives include protection of human life, property and environment, the law does not require that reconstruction incorporate resilience standards such as hazard resistant building codes, environmental impact assessments, climate resilient planning, land use reform or long term maintenance.

Consequently, reconstruction may focus purely on returning to normal, rebuilding destroyed structures rather than building back better with resilience to future disasters, long term sustainability and environmental and social safeguards.

Given Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to multiple hazards (floods, landslides and coastal hazards, tsunamis), this omission undermines long term security and effectively locks communities back into vulnerability.

To move beyond these entrenched gaps, Sri Lanka would do well to draw on examples from other nations that have combined legal frameworks, institutional reforms, transparent processes and resilience-oriented rebuilding.

Indonesia

Following the 2004 tsunami, Indonesia established Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi (BRR) in April 2005 as a dedicated reconstruction agency. BRR was tasked with coordinating donor agencies, managing reconstruction funding, planning and execution for affected regions. BRR’s success lay not only in speed but in its structure, coordination and transparent management. According to academic studies, BRR’s reconstruction led to the building of around 130,000 houses in Aceh under a build back better policy, not simply replacing what was lost but improving housing standards to be more resilient than before.

The reconstruction included better land use planning, formalization of land rights, safer housing design and community-oriented development. This holistic, planned recovery helped transform devastated areas into functioning, healthier communities, substantially mitigating future disaster risks. Moreover, the presence of a central, legally sanctioned, transparent coordinating body helped reduce duplication of donor efforts, inefficiency and opportunities for corruption – a problem that often plagues large scale disaster responses.

The BRR model shows that legal and institutional commitment, combined with transparent processes and long term planning, can enable a developing country to rebuild well even under massive destruction.

New Zealand

When a major earthquake struck Christchurch and the Canterbury region of New Zealand in 2011, the government responded by passing the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 granting a statutory framework for coordinated, expedited reconstruction.

The Act established a dedicated body, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to oversee reconstruction, planning, land use decisions, resettlement and rebuilding. The statutory framework gave the authority power to coordinate across government agencies, ensure a consistent rebuilding process and manage complex issues such as land use, re-zoning, building standards and infrastructure repair.

While the legislation has since been repealed (as of 2016 when replaced by broader regeneration law), its approach offers important lessons: using law to centralize coordination, prioritize community well-being and integrate reconstruction with long term planning.

More recently (2024), New Zealand updated its natural hazard legislation via the Natural Hazards Insurance Act 2023 (replacing the old earthquake only scheme). This modernized act extends coverage to a broad set of hazards – earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and volcanic activity and aims to make recovery more predictable, transparent and resilient.

The modern approach reflects global best practices: legal recognition of diverse hazards; institutional structures for disaster resilient recovery; insurance and compensation mechanisms; transparent governance; and community protection.

Why legal rigor matters

Global examples demonstrate that transparent, legally grounded reconstruction is not just idealistic; it produces tangible benefits. For Sri Lanka, this is especially important given its geography, socio-economic vulnerabilities and recurring disasters (floods, landslides and coastal hazards).

Here are some critical reasons why legal rigor must be central to Sri Lanka’s recovery approach:

• Public trust and legitimacy: Transparent disclosure of relief and expenditure fosters confidence among citizens. When people see where funds go – houses built, utilities restored, fair compensation – they are more likely to support rebuilding efforts and cooperate with authorities.
• Prevention of corruption and misuse: Legal safeguards reduce opportunities for mismanagement, nepotism or fraud, especially in high stakes procurement and compensation schemes.
• Sustainable resilience: Reconstruction that follows legal standards for building, land use, environmental assessment and disaster proofing helps ensure new infrastructure is safer, durable and long lasting.
• Fairness, inclusion and social justice: Transparent, community inclusive planning helps protect vulnerable groups from unfair displacement, exploitation or arbitrary resettlement.
• Attracting donor and international support: International donors and development agencies often demand transparency and accountability under formal structures. A credible legal framework improves access to aid, investment and technical support.

In short without legal rigor, recovery bears the risk of becoming patchwork, inequitable and vulnerable to future disasters.

What Sri Lanka must do

Drawing on global lessons and local legal reality, here is a roadmap for how Sri Lanka can embed accountability, transparency and sustainability in its post-disaster rebuilding anchored in law.

Mandate public disclosure of all expenditures

• Amend the DMA or issue cabinet regulations under its authority to require all ministries, local authorities and relevant agencies to publish real time updates on funds received, funds disbursed and reconstruction contracts, identities of contractors, timelines and progress reports.
• Make such disclosure mandatory for both domestic funds and international aid.
• Link transparency to legal accountability: failure to publish should carry legal or administrative consequences (e.g. voiding of contracts, criminal/administrative liability and public audit referrals).

Establish an independent reconstruction oversight commission

• Create a temporary but legally constituted body akin to Indonesia’s BRR with a clear, timebound mandate to oversee reconstruction.
• Empower the commission with the legal authority to audit expenditures, review all reconstruction contracts, monitor progress and publicly report status.
• Mandate that the commission refer suspected misconduct or corruption to anti-corruption bodies or courts for investigation.

Legislated community participation and legal rights for affected persons

• Introduce legal provisions requiring public consultations before major reconstruction decisions especially where relocation, land use, rezoning or resettlement is involved.
• Guarantee affected communities the right to meaningful input, consultations and appeal/objection mechanisms.
• Make community consultation a pre-requisite for official approval or funding of reconstruction projects.

Embed build back better principles in law

• Amend building codes, land use laws and environmental/hazard laws to require that reconstruction meets resilient standards: hazard resistant construction, proper drainage and flood control, soil stability assessments in landslide prone zones and coastal erosion mitigation.

• Require environmental and social impact assessments, long term maintenance plans and climate resilience measures for all reconstruction projects.

Mandatory audits, transparency and legal redress for misuse or negligence

• Require regular audits – financial, technical and social – of all reconstruction projects by independent or semi-independent auditors, with published audit reports.
• Provide legal channels for affected citizens or civil society organizations to challenge irregularities, via courts or independent oversight bodies.
• Enact whistleblower protection for those reporting misuse of funds, negligence or corruption in reconstruction or relief operations.

Harmonization of disaster law with other laws

• Given that disasters often involve land loss, displacement, environmental damage and infrastructure, harmonize disaster law with land law, housing law, environmental regulations and local government law.
• This ensures a holistic legal framework where reconstruction is not an afterthought but integrated into national development, land tenure, housing rights, environmental protection and urban/rural planning.

Risks of opaque, unsustainable recovery

Failing to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks for transparency, accountability and sustainability could carry heavy costs:

• Erosion of public trust: Widespread rumors or evidence of misused funds, unequal compensation or shady procurement is likely to generate resentment, especially among the most vulnerable.
• Entrenchment of inequality: Without transparent and participatory planning, reconstruction may privilege politically connected individuals or regions, widening pre-existing inequities.
• Perpetuating vulnerability: Rebuilding infrastructure without resilience standards sets the stage for even greater devastation when the next disaster strikes.
• Reduced international support and credibility: Donors and international partners are less likely to commit resources if transparency is weak. Long term investment may also dry up.
• Legal and social instability: Disputes over land, housing, compensation or contracts may lead to court cases, social unrest or forced relocations, undermining the entire reconstruction effort and national cohesion.

The recent catastrophic events have struck with unprecedented intensity, leaving homes obliterated, livelihoods disrupted and critical infrastructure severely compromised. The human toll is profound, exposing not only immediate suffering but also the deeper structural vulnerabilities that persist within governance, coordination mechanisms, resource management, social protection and long term resilience frameworks. In the wake of such devastation, as both domestic and international attention converge on Sri Lanka, there emerges a rare and urgent opportunity not merely to restore what was lost but to reimagine and reconstruct the foundations of recovery.

Central to this endeavor is the institutionalization of transparency, accountability and sustainability, ensuring that reconstruction is both equitable and resilient. Lessons from global precedents, from the post-tsunami recovery in Aceh to the post-earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch, demonstrate that it is both possible and profoundly effective to integrate robust legal frameworks, coordinated institutional action, community engagement and resilient rebuilding strategies.

The deliberate adoption of these lessons at this critical juncture may determine not only the restoration of physical infrastructure and livelihoods but also the rebuilding of trust, legitimacy and societal cohesion in the long term.

Natural disasters do more than tear down walls: they shatter lives, uproot communities and erase memories, the sense of security and hope. For countless victims, a home is far more than a structure; it is the repository of childhood, family gatherings, neighborly bonds and the quiet certainty of safety. Restoring these homes requires more than bricks and roofs; it demands justice, dignity, and the unwavering trust of the people.

A reconstruction process that is transparent, accountable and sustainable is not merely an exercise in governance; it is a solemn covenant between the state and its citizens, a pledge that in their hour of greatest vulnerability, they will be remembered, protected and empowered.

When families see their homes rebuilt on solid foundations, when compensation is delivered fairly and promptly and when contracts and decisions are executed openly, what is restored is far greater than infrastructure: it is faith. Faith in institutions, faith in collective responsibility and faith in a future where Sri Lankans stand together, resilient in the face of adversity.

If Sri Lanka rises to this challenge, it will not simply rebuild what was lost; it will reaffirm its spirit. It will emerge as a nation renewed, bound by courage, fairness, and resilience where every brick laid embodies trust and every roof raised shelters not just lives but the enduring hope and pride of a people united. May this reconstruction become a testament to the strength, dignity and unwavering patriotism of Sri Lanka and her citizens.

[1] Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005