Economic recovery from natural disaster

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to analyse as to how the benefits to Tsunami affected small industry were misplaced and carried wrong priorities. Besides the support provided was insufficient for an effective recovery. There existed many governance-related problems. Overall recovery was at a low figure of 64.8 percent. The occurrence of the natural disaster of this high magnitude leaves a trail of lessons to be learnt by both the government agencies and also the donor community. There was no shortage of either the funds or the commodities, but it was sadly the governance and the sensitivity to the suffering of the people. Design/methodology/approach -The study employed the proven methodologies of a survey of available literature, web sites, and publications to obtain secondary data and information on industry especially the micro and SMEs in areas of disaster damage occurred because of Tsunami. The second methodology of research is in areas of collection of data on industry at national level and categorization for selection of sample size. Interviews formed an important source of information. Interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders conducting various rehabilitation and re-establishment programmes. Findings -Micro and SMEs are important for economic development of Sri Lanka. These carry a strategic importance to generate employment. As such rehabilitation of industry affected by Tsunami is vital. Tsunami could have been used by the government, development agencies and donors as opportunity for rebuilding on modern lines. The main damage was caused to the plant and machinery. A right expenditure should have been in the direction of procurement of tools, equipment and machinery for the affected units. Unfortunately the help could not be organized to reach the right industry, in right quantity, and right way. Surprisingly, it was not because of shortage of funds. Originality/value -The present case leaves lessons for development agencies, government departments and welfare associations. No such extensive study seems to have carried out.Special thanks are extended to T. Kasun, M. Manukantha, M. Deleepa and K. Kanthi for their research assistance and several officers of Industrial Development Board, Disaster Management Centre and others in Southern Lanka for their support.

The Role of Private Stakeholders in Disaster and Humanitarian Operations

“…Provision of financial, human and material resources to support local aid networks (Borwankar & Velamuri, 2009;Hansen & Spitzeck, 2011;Mele & Mammoser, 2011) Some challenges are structural and permeate all these three approaches of the private sector engagement in disaster and humanitarian operations. Corruption appears as a common and chronic problem in which companies are directly affected in the oneoff relationship approach (Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013). In the same way, Spiegel (2009) reports that companies can treat it as an environmental issue or as a market variable in a contractual approach; and, in the CSR partnership approach, it is observed as a structural characteristic in disaster and humanitarian environment (Katamba et al, 2014).…”

“…Table 2 presents the synthesis of their risks, challenges and benefits and also the impact and benefits to others stakeholders from public and social groups, as described in previous sections. (Clayton et al, 2012;Dethier & Effenberger, 2012;Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013) Unstable and damaged environment, which affect the costs and security of operations, employees and other problems, such as corruption (Bray & Crockett, 2012;Nkamnebe & Idemobi, 2011;Smith, 1997) Profit loss and/or low efficient operations when compared to private operations, which may lead to frustration feeling. The occurrence of other environmental characteristics such as corruption and inadequate resources and infrastructure (Kolady & Lesser, 2008;Borwankar & Velamuri.…”

“…Development of new products/services that meet others stakeholders interests and specific actions that aid the recovery of the supply chains affected by a disaster (Bauner, 2011;Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013) Employment of local affected population and providing financial security to them and the society, also aiding the recovery by the provision of their products/ services (Bray & Crockett, 2012;Nkamnebe & Idemobi, 2011;Yates & Paquette, 2011;Jain, 2015;Linnerooth-Bayer et al, 2009;Ambituuni et al, 2014;Kaiser, 2015;Spiegel, 2009).…”

“…Companies orientated towards the one-off relationship approach may rely on receiving external aid or support from different stakeholders in order to participate in the economic recovery of regions in humanitarian conflict or be involved in the disaster response (Clayton, K'nIfe, & Spencer, 2012;Dethier & Effenberger, 2012;Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013). Despite that, corruption may arise in the humanitarian and disaster environment and private organizations may face difficult procedures to obtain any aid or/and delay in receiving such aid, as observed after the tsunami that affected Sri Lanka in 2006 (Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013).…”

“…The pressures faced by private organizations also represent an opportunity for the development of new products in accordance to the stakeholders' desires (Bauner, 2011). Moreover, any single action from organizations engaging the one-off relationship approach are important to the recovery of the local supply chains based on the population employment (Sardana & Dasanayaka, 2013).…”