Sri Lanka’s humanitarian landscape in recent years has been shaped by converging pressures: an unprecedented economic collapse, climate-driven disasters, persistent governance challenges, and stressed public services. These overlapping crises have pushed vulnerable groups—low-income families, estate workers, fishing communities, and urban poor—into new depths of fragility. As the state struggles to stabilize its economy and restore institutional trust, the effectiveness of humanitarian action increasingly depends on the strength of coordination, clarity in roles, and the ability to respond across multiple fronts simultaneously.
This article examines the country’s complex humanitarian picture and assesses how coordination mechanisms—both domestic and international—have shaped outcomes.
1. A Crisis with Multiple Fronts
1.1 Economic Shock and Social Vulnerability
The 2022–2024 economic implosion created a prolonged humanitarian emergency. Hyperinflation, currency depreciation, and shortages of fuel, medicines, and food led to what the UN defined as Sri Lanka’s worst economic-induced humanitarian crisis in decades. Poverty rates doubled in under two years, pushing over 6 million people into food insecurity.
The recovery remains uneven. Even with IMF-supported stabilization efforts, household purchasing power is low, wages remain stagnant, and service delivery—especially health and education—continues to lag. For many families, the crisis is “not over,” merely less visible.
1.2 Climatic Extremes Intensifying Hardship
Sri Lanka also lies on the front line of climate volatility. The increasing intensity of monsoon cycles has produced more severe floods, landslides, and droughts. The 2023–2025 monsoonal flooding displaced tens of thousands and caused recurrent damage to homes, infrastructure, and farmland. Climate shocks often hit regions already weakened by the financial crisis, amplifying the humanitarian burden.
1.3 Strain on Public Services
Years of fiscal contraction, underinvestment, and governance failures have weakened Sri Lanka’s welfare institutions. Hospitals struggled with medicine shortages; schools faced supply and transport disruptions; public distribution systems became unreliable. Humanitarian coordination had to step into vacuums usually filled by the state.
2. The Humanitarian System: Fragmented but Evolving
2.1 Government’s Central Role—But Mixed Capacity
Historically, Sri Lanka has maintained strong disaster-management systems, especially after the 2004 tsunami. However, during the recent crisis, institutional fragmentation—between the Disaster Management Centre (DMC), line ministries, provincial councils, and military-led emergency units—created operational delays.
Despite these challenges, the government retained control over response strategy, setting the stage for cooperation with UN agencies, INGOs, and local civil-society networks.
2.2 UN-led and Partner-led Coordination
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) played a key role in establishing shared needs assessments, sectoral lead groups, and resource-tracking frameworks. Agencies like WFP, UNICEF, IOM, and UNDP deployed targeted interventions across nutrition, child protection, cash-assistance, and economic recovery.
Yet coordination faced friction:
- Data limitations slowed planning.
- Overlapping mandates between agencies created turf issues.
- Unequal donor interest skewed resources toward food security and away from long-term recovery.
2.3 Local Actors: The Under-recognized Backbone
Sri Lanka’s local NGOs, faith-based institutions, and community disaster-response groups deliver a large share of protection, relief, and early-warning services. They possess deep community trust and contextual awareness, particularly in plantation communities and post-conflict zones. However, they often lack access to international funding due to bureaucratic barriers. Strengthening these actors remains one of the most important—and underutilized—avenues for sustainable humanitarian action.
3. India’s Critical Role: Timely Assistance, Regional Stability, and Humanitarian Diplomacy
India’s response to Sri Lanka’s crisis stands out for its scale, speed, and strategic sensitivity. As the crisis deepened in 2022–2024, New Delhi delivered a wide spectrum of humanitarian, economic, and development support—much of it mobilized faster than aid from other international partners.
3.1 The Largest Bilateral Support Package to Sri Lanka
India extended more than USD 4 billion in financial, fuel, food, and currency support, becoming Sri Lanka’s single largest emergency partner during the peak of its economic collapse. Key components included:
- USD 1 billion line of credit for essential imports (food, medicines, raw materials).
- USD 500 million credit facility for urgent fuel requirements.
- Currency swaps and loan deferments through the Reserve Bank of India.
- Direct supply of petrol, diesel, and kerosene to keep transport, hospitals, and power generation functioning.
This support helped Sri Lanka continue essential services during a period when foreign reserves had nearly collapsed.
3.2 Humanitarian Supplies: Food, Medicine, and Community Relief
India dispatched shipments of rice, pulses, milk powder, emergency medicines, and essential drugs, especially for children and low-income communities.
Significant interventions included:
- 25,000 metric tonnes of rice for immediate food security.
- Life-saving medical supplies delivered to Colombo and Jaffna hospitals.
- Bottled oxygen and respiratory equipment during health-sector shortages.
- Targeted support to plantation Tamils, a historically underserved population facing acute economic stress.
Through the Indian High Commission, relief was distributed directly to vulnerable populations alongside local NGOs, ensuring smoother on-ground access.
3.3 Energy and Infrastructure Support
Sri Lanka’s power and fuel collapse risked destabilizing social order. India’s assistance played a stabilizing role through:
- Fuel shipments during the months-long shortage.
- Technical support for grid maintenance and renewable energy partnerships.
- Early-stage cooperation on regional energy connectivity, reducing Sri Lanka’s long-term vulnerability.
3.4 Diplomatic Backing in International Forums
India was one of the earliest countries to support Sri Lanka’s IMF bailout pathway, engaging in:
- Providing “Bilateral Financing Assurances” required by the IMF board.
- Coordinating with Japan, the Paris Club, and multilateral institutions.
- Advocating for Sri Lanka’s debt-restructuring timetable.
This diplomatic support accelerated Sri Lanka’s access to reforms and stabilization funding.
3.5 Beyond Relief: India’s Long-Term Development Partnership
India coupled humanitarian relief with developmental and people-centric projects, including:
- Reconstruction of rail networks, housing, and schools.
- livelihood programs in fisheries and agriculture;
- digital-cooperation initiatives and pharmaceutical partnerships.
These ensure the recovery is not just temporary, but tied to long-term resilience.
4. Key Gaps and Challenges Ahead
Despite improvements, Sri Lanka’s humanitarian coordination system faces persistent bottlenecks:
- Fragmented government leadership, especially between central and provincial bodies.
- Insufficient climate-risk planning, leaving flood- and landslide-prone districts exposed.
- Uneven access to international funding for local organizations.
- Information gaps that slow decision-making during fast-moving disasters.
- Public distrust, intensified by recent economic and political instability.
Without a more unified approach, Sri Lanka risks “crisis recycling,” where each shock repeats past vulnerabilities.
5. Strengthening the Multi-Faceted Response: Pathways Forward
5.1 Build a Robust National Coordination Hub
A revitalized national disaster-coordination center—better staffed, tech-enabled, and linked to district units—can significantly reduce response delays. Transparent data-sharing should be made mandatory across all agencies.
5.2 Empower Local Organizations and Community Leaders
Humanitarian systems are strongest when local actors take the lead. This includes easing grant policies, training community responders, and integrating local knowledge into risk mapping.
5.3 Prioritize Climate Adaptation as a Humanitarian Investment
Infrastructure upgrades, flood-resilient housing, and watershed restoration should be woven into humanitarian programming. Sri Lanka cannot treat climate disasters as isolated events—they are structural threats.
5.4 Strengthen Social Protection to Reduce Crisis Vulnerability
Cash transfers, nutrition supplements, school-meal programs, and healthcare subsidies stabilize families and reduce the need for emergency interventions.
5.5 Improve Public Communication and Transparency
Clear communication to citizens—on relief efforts, eligibility, early-warning alerts, and progress reports—is critical to rebuilding trust.
Conclusion
Sri Lanka’s humanitarian crisis is not the result of a single event but the convergence of economic instability, climate volatility, and institutional strain. Its response, therefore, must be equally multi-dimensional. Coordination—across government, international agencies, civil society, and local communities—is the backbone of this effort. When effectively executed, it reduces duplication, strengthens resilience, and ensures that aid reaches those who need it most.
As Sri Lanka navigates out of its multi-dimensional crisis, coordination—between government institutions, UN agencies, donors, and local communities—remains the cornerstone of recovery. India’s timely interventions proved that regional partnerships can be both humanitarian and strategic, anchored in stability and people-to-people ties.
As Sri Lanka navigates its path to recovery, the success of its humanitarian strategy will depend on how well these diverse actors work together. The crisis is complex, but with coherent leadership and coordinated action, the country can build a more resilient, inclusive, and responsive humanitarian system.
Going forward, Sri Lanka’s ability to recover sustainably will depend on how effectively these collaborative frameworks are strengthened, expanded, and localized.