Courtesy Daily Mirror

It is now evident that the Meteorology Department had forecast intense rainfall well in advance

The era of global warming, no country is immune from extreme climate events such as cyclones, floods, or heatwaves. Yet nations with stronger disaster-preparedness systems consistently mitigate damage and reduce death tolls. The global lesson is clear: countries must learn from past catastrophes and adapt their response mechanisms accordingly.

Japan stands out as a textbook example. After the magnitude 7.3 quake that struck the Hanshin region of Kobe and Osaka, as well as the Awaji Island area, on January 17, 1995—killing 6,434 people, severely injuring 10,683, and damaging or destroying more than 639,000 homes—Japan fundamentally altered the way it prepares for and responds to disasters. The reforms that followed paved the way for more robust responses to subsequent calamities, including the March 11, 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, and the Noto Peninsula quake on New Year’s Day 2024. New laws, improved regulations, and strengthened institutions ensured that hard-learned lessons translated into better protection for citizens.

Sri Lanka, too, has endured its own share of devastating natural disasters, with the 2004 tsunami standing as the worst in terms of loss of life. Floods remain the most frequent hazard, repeatedly battering communities across the island. To its credit, the country has shown remarkable resilience, often bouncing back faster than expected. The establishment of the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) and the enactment of relevant legal frameworks were steps in the right direction.

However, the recent weather-induced calamity exposed a critical question: is Sri Lanka truly prepared for such events, and does it possess the tools necessary for effective response?

It is now evident that the Meteorology Department had forecast intense rainfall well in advance. As predicted, torrential downpours continued for hours, if not days, unleashing deadly floods and landslides that claimed nearly 500 lives. The scale of destruction raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about preparedness. If such heavy rainfall was anticipated, the government should have been equipped to conduct proper impact assessments and activate preventive measures. Anticipating massive inflows of water, irrigation reservoirs should have been lowered to create buffer capacity—an essential step in managing water volumes and reducing the risk of downstream flooding. Likewise, in hazard-prone areas, people should have been evacuated early. Advanced warnings only save lives when they translate into timely action on the ground.

Forecasting is meaningful only if its implications are properly understood and acted upon.  In the era of climate change, it is now an obligation by the government. If authorities expected heavy inflows of water, irrigation reservoirs across the island should have been pre-emptively lowered to create buffer space. Had such pre-emptive water management been implemented, downstream communities could have been better protected from flooding.

Similarly, hazard-prone areas—particularly  upcountry areas vulnerable to landslides—should have been flagged for immediate evacuation. Sri Lanka has years of data identifying landslide-prone regions. This raises a deeper issue: Is Sri Lanka’s disaster-preparedness model sufficiently proactive? Our system still leans heavily toward post-disaster response—rescue, relief, and reconstruction. What is required is a decisive shift toward prevention and risk reduction. This includes strengthening early-warning dissemination, improving community awareness, maintaining infrastructure, and conducting regular mock drills.

On Wednesday, the opposition legislators took the government to task over its alleged failure in advance warning. Failure on the part of the government agencies in dissemination of information resulted in the loss of lives, alleged Opposition MP Anuradha Jayaratne.  It is important to appoint a parliamentary select committee under the chair of an experienced MP to study all these allegations.  Such a committee should be mandated to make recommendations for the future.  It is also better to look at international experience in this case.  For example, Japan’s resilience is not the result of technology alone. It is the result of a culture of preparedness—where the public, officials, emergency workers, and institutions are aligned in understanding risk. Sri Lanka must foster a similar culture. People must know how to respond when warnings are issued. Local authorities must have clear protocols for evacuation, resource mobilisation, and coordination with national agencies. Political leaders must understand that disaster preparedness is not a seasonal activity; it is a continuous investment. Sri Lanka should be a natural -disaster conscious nation.

As climate change accelerates, Sri Lanka will face more intense weather events. Floods will be more frequent. Landslides will occur in new areas. Sea-level rise will make coastal communities more vulnerable. In this reality, outdated methods of disaster management are no longer adequate.

‘Your Thought’ is a space, a right of the readers to support or contradict and discuss the issues highlighted in the editorial and other articles in the editorial and op-ed pages. Designed as the reader’s editorial; our readers can send in their writings, with a word count not exceeding 200, to ‘Your Thought’, Daily Mirror Political Features Desk, No 8, Hunupitiya Cross Road, Colombo 2 or email to dmreadersthought@gmail.com