By: Staff Writer
December 14, Colombo (LNW): The “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” Fund, launched in the wake of Cyclone Ditwah, has been promoted by the government as a bold public private partnership to accelerate national recovery. Yet for many civil society groups, it represents something far more troubling: the corporatisation of disaster governance.
The fund, now holding nearly Rs. 1.9 billion, is overseen by a powerful management committee blending senior state officials with some of the country’s most influential corporate leaders. While business participation in fundraising is not unusual during crises, critics argue that granting sweeping authority over national reconstruction to corporate executives crosses a critical line.
A prominent civil society organisation has issued a sharply worded warning, arguing that private-sector committee members are legally and professionally obligated to maximise shareholder wealth, creating what it calls an “imminent and unavoidable conflict of interest.” Unless these individuals step away from their corporate roles, the organisation says, public trust in recovery decisions will remain compromised.
The concern is not theoretical. Reconstruction inevitably involves large-scale infrastructure, procurement, and commercial projects. Roads, ports, housing, and irrigation systems translate into lucrative contracts. If companies linked to committee members stand to benefit directly or indirectly the risk of preferential tenders and misuse of state compensation funds becomes acute.
Equally contentious is the lack of inclusivity. The committee is entirely male and overwhelmingly Colombo-centric. There is no representation from women, disaster-affected communities, environmental specialists, agricultural experts, or grassroots humanitarian actors who work directly with victims.
This exclusion contradicts both the government’s stated commitment to citizen participation and the principles of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which Sri Lanka has formally endorsed. That framework emphasises inclusive, community-based recovery yet the current structure centralises decision-making among a narrow elite.
Supporters of the fund argue that private-sector expertise brings efficiency, credibility, and access to international donors. In a fiscally constrained state, they say, such partnerships are unavoidable.
But critics respond that efficiency without accountability is a dangerous bargain. They argue that disaster recovery must prioritise equity, gender justice, environmental sustainability, and social cohesion not speed alone.
The fear, as one activist put it, is that Sri Lanka is being transformed into “Sri Lanka Inc.,” where national trauma becomes an opportunity for elite-driven reconstruction rather than people-centred recovery.
As rebuilding moves from emergency relief to long-term development, the unresolved questions surrounding governance, conflicts of interest, and representation may prove just as consequential as the cyclone itself.
