A National Multi-Hazards
Warning System for Sri
Lanka
Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia
Malathy Knight-John, LIRNEasia and Institute
of Policy Studies
Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
17 February 2005
Imagine . . .

Another tsunami coming to Sri Lanka in
2016 . . .




A 24-hours/day, 365 days/year national multihazards warning center gets the alert from the
international system
A warning is issued within 9 minutes to
emergency services, district administrative
authorities, hotel groups, telecom operators,
etc.
When the waves hit within 90 minutes,
evacuation was complete
Casualties amounted to 300
Background

Desperate need for warning system


First contact of tsunami at around 0836 hrs Sri Lanka
time in vicinity of Kalmunai
Waves kept hitting points further north and south (and
then the West Coast) over the next 3+ hours




No warning of tsunami based on seismic or tsunami
warnings
No warning based on what happened on the East Coast
Hawai’i changed their entire disaster warning/
response system because 61 people died in the
1960 tsunami
We lost around 40,000 . . . .
Consultative, participatory process

International input



International disaster communications expert
Expert referees, including those at news conference
Local input


Local team: Samarajiva, Malathy Knight-John, Ayesha
Zainudeen, assisted by others
Expert consultation: January 26th 2005





Alumni of Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre
Those who responded to the advertisement
Web comments, including on discussion document
Video news conference on 10th of February
Ceylon Chamber of Commerce event on 17th of February
Public Warning as component of a Risk
Management System
Focus of this
concept
paper
Response
Warning
Risk Management
System
Preparedness
Education
Mitigation
Recovery
What is not included

Hazard detection & monitoring systems,
e.g.,



Emergency response functions


Indian Ocean tsunami warning system,
including seismometers and deep-sea tsunami
sensors
Cyclone detection and monitoring system
Police and other agencies responsible for
evacuation, etc.
Disaster awareness and education
Why?



Accept that first-best solution is an integrated
comprehensive risk management system
But, in an environment of “all talk, little action,”
best approach is to focus on critical component
and fix it
Chose public warning because it is important,
low-cost and solvable, though few are paying
attention to it and because we have expertise

Our model 
http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/ppw/docs/1
1_25_2002report.pdf
Key excerpt

Bringing diverse warning resources together and
focusing on a unified all-hazard warning system
will improve the effectiveness of all warnings
significantly. More people at risk will be warned.
Improved warning systems and procedures will
clearly save significant numbers of lives every
year, will reduce losses from natural and manmade disasters, and will speed recovery. Building
and operating a unified all-hazard public warning
system is beyond the capability of any local
community, state, federal agency, or industry. It
requires the cooperation of all these groups to
work effectively together in partnership.
Effective Public Warning (I)

Rationale:


Human, Economic, Social and Political
Prerequisites:



Education and awareness raising
Planning
Testing and assessment
Effective Public Warning (II)

Parameters





For ALL-hazards
Linked to regional and global systems
Ubiquitous and accessible warnings
Credibility of warning
Large role for Public-private partnerships

Dissemination via existing and emerging private
networks as well as media
 Role for telecom and broadcasting industries

Key role played by private sector firms in the
dissemination chain
Why multi-hazard system in Sri Lanka?



Statement at expert consultation: “Sri Lankans
are good at installing but not at maintaining”
Problem is more about systems than technologies
(though technologies matter)
Have to keep systems in perfect operational
order, though they are used infrequently



Best method is to have a multi-hazard system that will
be used more frequently than a single-hazard system
We can concentrate the best people in one place
for the task
Cheaper
A National All-Hazards Warning System

Public warning is



A public good: not supplied by market
CORE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT
Two options:

Government supply: PLAN A


Variant: Government delegates task to nongovernment entity
Public good is ‘bundled’ with private goods,
supplied by private sector: PLAN B
PLAN A:
The Island of Good Governance

Government supplies warnings, funded through
taxation

Design elements and safeguards to ensure high
performance: provisions for




deployment of proper expertise and equipment,
adequate levels of funding,
insulation from day-to-day political interference, and
transparency and accountability (necessary safeguards in
light of substantial independence given)
Will require large effort and time in order to get
it right
Plan A, Variant

In Bangladesh, the Red Crescent Society
operates the cyclone warning system



Government provides some funds and
meteorological data
Tightly integrated to community based
awareness and shelter programs
Many lives have been saved
PLAN B:
Private Sector Takes Action

Private sector establishes warning systems

Likely to take the lead




Insurance
Tourism
Can complement national system when it
comes into being
Requires government support (indemnification,
access to hazard information, etc.), especially
if extending outside employees and guests to
adjacent communities
PLAN B:
Private Sector Takes Action

Private sector supplies warnings

Unlikely that a national all-hazard system will
emerge

E.g., coastal hotels will cooperate on a tsunami and
cyclone warning system while interior hotels will
focus on other hazards
This is second or third best solution; something
is better than nothing for now
Action…

Immediate:



Localized and partial efforts focused on
hazards relevant to specific industries/entities
can be implemented
Education and awareness raising
Medium-term (six months from now):

Nationwide ALL-hazards warning system needs
to be carefully designed and diligently
implemented

Perhaps with contributions from the ground-up
systems
Key points

Urgent need for effective system to convey
information on hazards to all citizens, visitors and
organizations





Systems, not limited to technology
System should be at national level, with links to
regional/international systems
It should convey authoritative watches and
warnings to the media, emergency response
authorities, and relevant others
It should be a multi-hazards center, with best
possible governance and independence
May be complemented by industry-run warning
systems
Interim Concept Paper (& some comments)
available at:
www.lirneasia.net
www.vanguardfoundationlanka.org
Open for comments until February 19th 2005
Finalization and submission by February 26th 2005