Beyond Emergency Relief: Evidence-Based Priorities for Humanitarian and Early Recovery Assistance After Cyclone Ditwah

Cyclone Ditwah made landfall in Sri Lanka in early December 2025, generating widespread flooding, landslides, and infrastructure disruption. According to the Disaster Management Centre (DMC), over 1.47 million people were affected across 12 districts, with 310,000 temporarily displaced into evacuation centers or informal hosting arrangements. Initial emergency response focused on shelter, food, and health interventions; while critical for immediate survival, these interventions addressed only a fraction of the humanitarian needs.

Evidence from the Joint Rapid Needs Assessment (JRNA, December 2025) and sectoral assessments by FAO/WFP and UN agencies indicates that short-term relief, while necessary, is insufficient to stabilize communities or prevent cascading economic and social losses. Cyclone Ditwah’s impact has exposed structural vulnerabilities: smallholder farmers lost crops and livestock, market access was interrupted, and households dependent on informal labor suffered sudden income shocks.

This article presents an evidence-based framework for transitioning from emergency relief to early recovery, integrating livelihood restoration, resilience-building, and social protection, in line with the UN’s humanitarian–development nexus approach. It targets donors, UN pooled fund managers, and development actors, emphasizing cost-effective interventions that prevent a protracted humanitarian crisis.

2. Limitations of Short-Term Relief Alone

Emergency interventions after Cyclone Ditwah stabilized immediate consumption needs but did not restore productive capacity. According to the JRNA, December 2025, 72 percent of affected households received some form of food or non-food assistance. Yet, four weeks post-cyclone, 38 percent of households still reported moderate to severe food insecurity, largely due to lost livelihoods and restricted market access.

Short-term relief does not address:

• Asset depletion: Seed, livestock, and farming tools were lost or destroyed.
• Income loss: Daily wage labor and informal work remained disrupted.
• Market disruptions: Damage to feeder roads and bridges constrained supply chains.
• Protection gaps: Women-headed households, persons with disabilities, and the elderly faced higher risks due to access barriers.

Relief-only approaches risk prolonging dependency, eroding household resilience, and increasing fiscal pressures on government and humanitarian actors. The evidence underscores the necessity of linking immediate aid with early recovery and livelihood restoration.

Sectoral Needs: Shelter, Livelihoods, Food, and WASH

Shelter and Housing

According to the DMC, over 92,000 houses were damaged, including 18,400 completely destroyed, with rural and low-income households disproportionately affected. Temporary shelters provide safety but insufficient conditions for privacy, sanitation, and dignity. Shelter repair and resilient housing programs are urgent to prevent protracted displacement and protection risks.

Livelihoods

Livelihood impacts were acute. JRNA data show that 54 percent of households lost at least one primary livelihood asset. Smallholder farmers in Badulla and Monaragala reported total crop failure, with over 62 percent of paddy land inundated (FAO/WFP). Livestock mortality exceeded 78,000 animals, further reducing household income and food availability.

Food Security

Food prices rose sharply due to reduced local supply and damaged market infrastructure: rice by 19 percent, vegetables by 27 percent, and pulses by 22 percent within weeks of the cyclone. Households reported negative coping mechanisms such as meal reduction (41 percent) and borrowing food or money (28 percent), increasing risk of malnutrition and long-term vulnerability.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)

Flooding damaged water supply systems and sanitation infrastructure. JRNA findings indicate over 30 percent of households in affected districts lacked safe drinking water access immediately post-disaster, heightening risks of diarrheal diseases and waterborne infections, especially among children and the elderly.

Statistical Evidence on Livelihood Damage and Displacement

Economic and social data illustrate the scale of the challenge:

Indicator	Value	Source
People affected	1.47 million	DMC, December 2025
Temporarily displaced	310,000	DMC, December 2025
Damaged houses	92,000+	DMC, December 2025
Completely destroyed houses	18,400	DMC, December 2025
Households reporting livelihood loss	54%	JRNA, December 2025
Livestock lost	78,000	World Bank/GFDRR GRADE
Food price increases (rice)	+19%	FAO/WFP
Food price increases (vegetables)	+27%	FAO/WFP

Disaggregated analyses show that women-headed households, persons with disabilities, and informal laborers experienced disproportionate losses, underlining the need for inclusive recovery programming.

Cost of Inaction vs. Early Recovery Investment

Failing to transition from emergency relief to early recovery carries measurable costs. World Bank/GFDRR GRADE projections suggest that each month of delayed recovery in agriculture-dependent districts could increase household income losses by 8 percent, with cumulative effects on food security, nutrition, and market activity.

By contrast, early recovery investments—such as seed distribution, livestock replacement, cash-for-work, and road rehabilitation—offer high returns. Evidence indicates that USD 1 invested in agricultural recovery generates USD 1.7 in avoided future losses, making timely interventions both fiscally responsible and humanitarianly effective. Delays risk prolonged dependency, increased malnutrition, erosion of social capital, and higher long-term fiscal outlays for relief.

Recommended Funding Priorities

To maximize effectiveness, humanitarian and donor investment should prioritize:

• Cash-based assistance: Multipurpose cash restores household purchasing power and stimulates local markets.
• Livelihood asset restoration: Seeds, livestock, and tools for smallholder farmers accelerate agricultural recovery.
• Cash-for-work programs: Provide income while rehabilitating community assets such as roads, irrigation, and flood mitigation infrastructure.
• Climate-resilient agriculture: Promote flood-tolerant seeds and diversified cropping to strengthen resilience.
• Inclusive targeting: Women-headed households, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities require tailored access strategies.

Funding allocations should integrate multi-sector coordination, ensuring that shelter, WASH, livelihoods, and food security interventions are mutually reinforcing.

Policy Recommendations for UN Pooled Funds and Bilateral Donors

1. Prioritize multi-year, flexible funding to bridge emergency relief and early recovery.
2. Integrate gender and protection mainstreaming in all sectoral interventions.
3. Support coordination mechanisms led by the DMC and UN OCHA to optimize geographic and sectoral targeting.
4. Invest in monitoring and accountability systems to track inclusion, effectiveness, and resilience outcomes.
5. Encourage evidence-based programming using JRNA, FAO/WFP, and World Bank/GFDRR assessments as guidance for resource allocation.

From Relief to Resilience

Cyclone Ditwah underscores that humanitarian crises extend beyond immediate survival needs. Visible flooding masked underlying economic and social vulnerabilities. Evidence demonstrates that emergency relief, while essential, cannot restore livelihoods, markets, and resilience.

Targeted early recovery investments—spanning cash assistance, livelihood restoration, and inclusive protection measures—are not optional; they are critical to preventing prolonged poverty, food insecurity, and economic stagnation. Donors and UN pooled fund managers have both a humanitarian and fiscal imperative: timely, coordinated, and evidence-based interventions now can prevent long-term crisis and lay the foundation for a more resilient Sri Lanka.