Towards Broadening the Scope of Disaster Risk Reduction: An Exploration of How Epidemic and Pandemic Preparedness is Currently Embedded Within Existing Disaster Risk Reduction Planning in Sri Lanka

COVID-19 has illustrated the systemic nature of risk by not only dismantling the health, social and economic aspects of a system but by also giving rise to compound vulnerabilities, particularly in the event of other hazards that occur in parallel with the pandemic situation. Therefore, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR] in its Engagement Strategy for COVID-19 Interim Report has stressed on the need for integrating biological hazards into Disaster Risk Reduction [DRR] planning and institutional mechanisms while fostering stronger collaboration between health and DRR authorities. This paper examines the extent to which epidemic and pandemic preparedness has been embedded within existing DRR Planning in Sri Lanka, particularly highlighting the current status and gaps. For the purpose of this study, a thorough review of existing literature on preparedness planning for biological hazards and DRR efforts in the country was carried out referring to policy and legal documents, national and international reports, scholarly articles and internet sources. Further, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with nineteen purposively selected key informants from the disaster management and health sectors of the country. Results show although ‘epidemics’ have been included in the interpretation of the term ‘disaster’ in Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005, preparedness planning for biological hazards is a predominantly health-sector process the primary responsibility of which is vested with the Director General of Health Services of the Ministry of Health and Indigenous Medical Services. Biological hazards been taken into account in national level DRR policing and planning in the country. Further, even though sub-national level DRR plans have largely overlooked biological hazards, attention has been paid to the epidemic of Dengue in certain districts. Nevertheless, the following gaps remain unaddressed: (1) lack of attention paid to biological hazards in executing DRR programs; (2) lack of technical knowledge regarding biological hazards among disaster management authorities; (3) minimal collaboration between disaster management and health authorities at a planning/decision making level and (4) limited indication of preparedness planning for biological hazards being mainstreamed into sub-national level DRR activities. The study depicts that while there’s ample room for integrating preparedness planning for biological hazards into DRR planning in the country, such integration requires a legal framework that advocates a multi-hazard and multi-sectoral approach to DRR.