Search

The recent global acknowledgement of the importance of disaster risk reduction (DRR) in steering the world towards sustainable development can be discerned in the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Ironically, certain DRR strategies like planned relocation have often undermined agricultural production, which is paramount for achieving certain Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as ‘Zero Poverty’ and ‘Zero Hunger’. This paper explores the impact of planned relocation on the agricultural income generating activities of rural communities relocated under a landslide induced relocation program executed in the Y district of Sri Lanka. Further, it discusses the extent to which the outcomes of said relocation program comply with the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda, thereby informing future policy directions towards planning, designing and executing DRR measures aimed at sustainable development. This study drew on a survey administered among 435 households who have been resettled under said project. The data was analyzed using the descriptive statistical method interactively with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and the MS Excel software. The findings of this study show that relocation has generated unfavorable outcomes for relocatees who depended on agriculture as primary or subsidiary source of income. This group of relocatees was also characterized by pre-existing vulnerabilities, rendering it difficult for them to adapt to the risks and stresses caused by relocation. Agricultural income generating activities are particularly threatened by relocation initiatives, as such activities are reliant on immovable assets like land. Therefore, special attention should be paid to rebuilding livelihoods of agricultural communities in planning, designing and implementing relocation programs. Given the significance of agriculture in achieving certain SDGs, failure to do so will lend to dissonance between DRR measures and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, subduing the efficacy of DRR in protecting development gains.

Background Girls and women need effective, safe, and affordable menstrual products. Single-use menstrual pads and tampons are regularly provided by agencies among resource-poor populations. Reusable menstrual pads (RMPs: fabric layers sewn together by an enterprise for manufacture of menstrual products) may be an effective alternative. Methods For this review (PROSPERO CRD42020179545) we searched databases (inception to November 1, 2020) for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported on leakage, acceptability, or safety of RMPs. Findings were summarised or combined using forest plots (random-effects meta-analysis). Potential costs and environmental savings associated with RMPs were estimated. Results A total of 44 studies were eligible (~14,800 participants). Most were conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC, 78%), and 20% in refugee settings. The overall quality of studies was low. RMP uptake in cohort studies ranged from 22–100% (12 studies). One Ugandan trial among schoolgirls found leakage with RMPs was lower (44.4%, n = 72) compared to cloths (78%, n = 111, p Conclusion RMPs are used internationally and are an effective, safe, cheaper, and environmentally friendly option for menstrual product provision by programmes. Good quality studies in this field are needed.

High impact disasters have been occurring frequently since 2011 in Sri Lanka, affecting more than 1 million people annually (Sri Lanka Rapid Post Disaster Needs Assessment Floods and Landslides, 2017). Torrential rains which resulted in severe flooding and landslides in 2016 affected almost 20 of the 25 districts. Following the landslides, the Kegalle District Secretariat undertook the responsibility of resettling families that resided in high risk zones and those whose houses were damaged. These were implemented as a disaster risk reduction strategy with the technical assistance of the National Building Research Organization (NBRO). Houses were built by using 2 approaches: (1) Donor driven and (2) Owner driven. Under the owner driven approach, two housing options were made available to people, namely: (1) Owner Driven at Government Relocation Sites [GRS] (2) Owner Driven at Individual Relocation Sites [IRS]. This paper explores the status of relocated families two years after relocation based on five indicators, namely, the impact on savings, physical housing conditions and satisfaction, social capital, access to common services, and possession of documents to prove ownership. Interviews were conducted with a randomly selected sample of 435 household heads of each housing type 129 Donor Built households (Under the Donor Driven approach, houses were constructed by donors with material and labour supply.), 190 GRS (Under the GRS approach, the government allocated a plot of minimum 10 perches of land for house construction. Further, beneficiaries were granted LKR. 1.2 million for house construction in four (04) installments based on the stage of completion.) and 116 IRS (Under the IRS approach, beneficiaries were granted a lump sum of LKR. 0.4 million to purchase land for house construction in addition to LKR. 1.2 million granted for house construction.) households in the Kegalle District in Sri Lanka. The findings reveal the socio-economic status of the people two years after relocation. Savings have reduced as a result of relocation. The most commendable feature is the physical housing conditions which have positively impacted the overall quality of life. There are no drastic differences in terms of accessing common places before and after relocation. The findings also reveal that a significant number of respondents did not possess legal deeds. This paper argues the importance of addressing these gaps in order to ensure more sustainable relocation projects in the future.

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.