Post Disaster Waste Management Strategies In Developing Countries: Case Of Sri Lanka

Disasters cause substantial damage around the world. This causes serious environmental and economic burden on normal living conditions, reconstruction and general waste collection processes. Within this context, waste management has emerged as a critical issue in responding to a disaster. Thus, this paper addresses post disaster waste management strategies adopted in developing countries and applicability of best global practices in respect of challenges encountered. Comprehensive literature review and field survey among national level institutes in Sri Lanka were conducted to gather information and semi-structured interviews were used as a method of data collection. The findings revealed that strategies, issues and challenges are varying according to type of disaster, magnitude, location, country etc. Further, poor implementation of prevailing rules and regulations; poor standards of local expertise and capacities, inadequate funds, lack of communication and coordination are identified as key issues encountered.


INTRODUCTION
Disasters, which are occurring in an increasing frequency in the world with devastating impacts (Shaw, 2006), have been defi ned in many ways depending on their characteristics and degrees of damages (Shakuf, 2007). According to the defi nition of Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (CRED, 2007) "disaster is a situation or event, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering". Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT, 2008), states that last eight years (2000 -2008) have seen 1.5 million people killed, more than 2 billion million people affected and about US $ 715 billion in economic losses caused by disasters. Out of people affected by disasters, almost 97% were affected by hydro meteorological (weather related) hazards, which also caused 60% of total economic losses caused by disasters (Shaw, 2006). CRED (2007) reveals that frequency of disasters and their effects seems to be increasing within last few decades.
According to Shaw (2006) impacts of those disasters, whether natural or man made, not only have human dimensions, but also environmental dimensions as well. Casualties including deaths, injured and misplaced people are the major physical impacts or human dimensions of any kind of a disaster. Property damages, collapsing of buildings, infrastructures and crop destruction are some further critical matters of a disaster situation (Shaw, 2006;Lindell and Prater, 2003). Tremendous amount of waste generation is a one grave consequence of all of above mentioned effects which should attract the society's attention highly. Pelling et al. (2002) emphasis that among the most adverse consequences of a disasters such as deaths, injuries, physical damages, disruption to economy and social disruption, the third potential loss of a disaster is physical damages which are the destruction of buildings and infrastructure creating enormous amount of building waste. Managing these wastes is very much hard since disaster wastes are mixed and diffi cult to separate (Kobayashi, 1995).
This causes serious environmental and economic burden on normal living conditions, reconstruction as well as on general municipal waste collection processes (UNEP, 2005;Bandara and Hettiarachchi, 2003). Within this context, waste management and disposal has emerged as a critical issue in responding to a disaster in any country whether developing or developed. Further, disasters are so close-ly intertwined with environment that proper environmental management and governance is essential for long term peace, stability and security in disaster prone countries, particularly, in developing countries where affected communities rely heavily on natural resources for survival.
This paper attempts to document waste management strategies, issues and challenges in disaster building waste management in developing countries, with special emphasis on Sri Lanka. Further, the paper will seek to identify the feasibility of mapping the best practices of waste reduction strategies used globally for future disasters in developing countries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Comprehensive literature review was carried out to identify waste management strategies, issues and challenges in disaster waste management at post disaster scenario. Secondary data includes more information pertaining to Asian Tsunami 2004 since this is the single event disaster that recorded highest number of deaths, damaged houses and affected families during the recent past in many developing countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Maldives and Indonesia (Joint Report, 2005;Hettiarachchi, 2004).
Field Survey was restricted to national level organizations related to waste management in Sri Lanka due to inability of author to conduct fi eld surveys in other countries. Semi structured interviews were conducted with government and non-government organizations to identify waste management strategies adopted and their successfulness.
The structure of the paper consists of disasters during past, post disaster waste management practices, issues and challenges in disaster waste management, comparative discussions and conclusions to the paper.

DISASTERS DURING PAST (2004 ONWARDS)
The world is facing an increasing frequency and intensity of disasters -natural and manmade -that has had devastating impacts. Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT, 2008), a global disaster database maintained by the CRED in Brussels, records more than 600 disasters globally, each year. According to the World Disaster Report 2000, over 80% of the world's climate-related disasters occurred in Asia (IFRC and RCS, 2000). Among those, in May 2008, an earthquake in Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces in Western China and Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar killed more than 69,000 people and infl icted billions of dollars of damages (Stone, 2008). While number of geophysical disasters such as earthquakes, Tsunamis etc, has remained steady, number of hydro-meteorological (weather related) events such as droughts, windstorms, fl oods, etc., has more than doubled. This is linked to climatic change and scientists predict global warming to result in more extreme weather patterns, providing for stronger and increasingly violent weather patterns. Therefore, challenges of recovery from natural disasters will be with us for an unforeseeable future (Helmer and Hihorst, 2006).
According to World Bank estimates in 1998, natural disasters killed over 50,000 people and destroyed US $65 billion worth of property and infrastructure. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHSP) notes that in the fi rst half of 2001 alone, natural disasters caused over US $24 billion damages globally. At the same time, over 60 million civilians were affected by some 30 confl icts in various parts of the world. The Figure 1 illustrates the number of disasters and peoples affected in during the past fi ve years (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008), according to EM-DAT (2008).
According to above, although more disasters occurred in 2005, impacts on humans were higher in 2007 although number of disasters was less when compared to other years. For example, statistics of the major Tsunami that occurred on 26 th of December 2004, in the Asian region killing nearly 250,000 people around the Indian Ocean indicates a single event which had higher impact than other disasters that happened during the year. Most of these disaster-related deaths occurred in developing countries and affected poorest people most severely. It also appears that same countries suffer from disasters repeatedly. For example, in Mexico, natural disasters claimed 10,000 lives and cost US $ 6.5 billion in 1980-2000, and in Indonesia, natural disasters claimed more than 165,000 lives and cost US $ 5 billion during 2000(Stone, 2008. It also appears that occurrence of disasters with severe impacts is on the increase. It is estimated that of the 100 most expensive natural disasters of the 20th century, 65 occurred in the 1990s, 25 in the 1980s and 10 in the 1970s, and much fewer in the previous decades (Du Plessis, 2001, cited Ofori, 2004. It is apparent that frequency and impact of disasters is greater in developing countries. Moreover, these nations are among those which tend to Post Disaster Waste Management Strategies in Developing Countries: Case of Sri Lanka be repeatedly affected by various types of disasters. Furthermore, developing countries are less able to cope with effects of such occurrences. There is evidence that impacts of disasters depend not only on their numbers but also on other factors such as types of disasters, magnitude, location etc. In the case of developing countries the droughts, landslides, storms and fl oods are common natural disasters while terrorism, violence, civil confl icts, explosions and industrial accidents are man-made disasters that affect communities (Jayaweera, 2006). In addition, the Tsunami that occurred in 2004 is recorded as an event that vastly affected costal communities of various developing countries in Asia during the recent past.

Disasters in Sri Lankan context
Sri Lanka is prone to natural disasters commonly caused by floods, cyclones, landslides, droughts and coastal erosion for generations with increasing losses of life and property (Jayawardane, 2006). Earthquakes have been recorded over the past 400 years and the country is also exposed to various human-induced hazards resulting from deforestation, indiscriminate coral, sand and gem mining and industrial pollutants (DMC, 2005).
The Figure 2 illustrates, according to the National Disaster Management Centre report (DMC, 2008), disasters which occurred island wide during the period of 2004-2008. Floods are the more critical and frequent disaster that occurred during the recent past. It caused immense damage to affected areas, interrupting all economic and social activities. It is also reported that there are tremendous damages to infrastructure facilities in affected areas where around 315,447 families were affected and 3256 houses were damaged partially or completely. Landslide is a common and seasonal disaster in Sri Lanka and according to DMC (2008), in 2007 landslide caused more impacts than fl oods where around 13,466 families were affected and 1047 houses were damaged partially or completely. Sri Lanka has been extremely hard-hit in terms of loss of life, infrastructure, and economic assets by the 2004 Tsunami which is widely acknowledged as the largest, most devastating natural catastrophe in the recent history of the country. According to the joint report of the Government of Sri Lanka and Joint Development Partners in December 2005, within a short period it claimed 35,322 lives, injured 21,441, orphaned 1,500 children and left many families without spouses (Joint Report, 2005). It heavily damaged 78,199 houses and partially damaged 48,911 more houses. In addition, it states that two thirds of the country's coastline was affected with many damages infl icted on roads, bridges, buildings, railways and other transport systems, ports and harbors, electricity and water supply systems, communication lines, markets, town and private properties. Since the coastline of Sri Lanka is heavily populated, where most of industrial and commercial activities take place, the country's economy was seriously affected (Subasinghe, 2005).

POST DISASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT
The debris generated by most severe disasters, overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities or force communities to use disposal options that otherwise would not be acceptable (EPA, 2008). This waste problem arising from disasters are grave and should attract much social attention due to adverse effects on water quality, air quality and noise, fl ora and fauna, visual impacts and socio economy (Petersen, 2004). European Commission has also identifi ed waste management as a key issue to be addressed among several dimensions in rehabilitation of environment in post emergency relief (EC, 2006). According to Aung and Arias (2006) the problem of waste can be addressed in a number of ways at community and governmental levels. Therefore, proper planning is of utmost importanance to reduce future vulnerabilities and to improve long-term sustainability (Shaw and Sinha, 2003).
The measures aiming at controlling disaster waste generation such as building regulations and codes need to be introduced at mitigation phase of disaster management cycle, as illustrated at Figure 3. The management of debris is involved at the recovery stage as debris generated through damaged buildings need to be collected, transported, reused, recycled, land fi lled or disposed. Rafee et al. (2008) indicated that disposal of debris is one of the main challenges of a disaster recovery operation. Therefore, a proper waste management plan should be established at the recovery stage. At the reconstruction phase, construction waste is produced by reconstruction work which is usually clean and relatively uncontaminated which creates specifi c opportunities for recycling.
The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in USA in their report (EPA, 2008) has identifi ed several items which are generated as waste at most post disaster circumstances as soil and sediments, building rubble, vegetation,  personal effects, hazardous material, mixed domestic and clinical wastes and, all too often, human and animal remains. These wastes represent a risk to human health from biological sources, chemical sources and physical sources (EPA, 2008). Further fi ndings reveled that generation of waste is also varying according to the type of disasters. Among these, building waste is a common type of waste with almost all types of disasters other than automobiles, furniture, vegetative debris, mixed metals, ash and charred wood waste and other debris. Kobayashi (1995) classified the disaster waste as: rubble and other waste accumulated on roads, demolition and dismantling waste of buildings, bulky waste and raw materials, items in processes or other substances. In 2004, Baycan refi ned the classifi cation in a more comprehensive manner as: recyclable materials (concrete, masonry, wood, metal, soil and excavated material), non recyclable materials (household inventory, organic materials, and other inert materials) and hazardous waste (asbestos, chemicals) (Baycan, 2004). Kourmpanis et al. (2008) has pointed out that building waste is considered to be one of the priority waste streams and appropriate actions need to be taken with respect to its effective management. There are signifi cant numbers of possible technical solutions and the next sections will address them in detail.

POST DISASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND MODELS
Building waste is derived from both the damaged build environment as well as from the subsequent relief and rehabilitation efforts. Considering the often large quantities of such solid wastes generated, early action within relief and rehabilitation programs is required to manage them in an environmentally sound manner. Managing these wastes is very much hard because, not as ordinary construc-tion wastes, disaster wastes are mixed and diffi cult to separate them (Kobayashi, 1995). Management of these waste streams becomes a considerable challenge for national and local institutions during rehabilitation and reconstruction stages (Baycan and Petersen, 2002). Further, it emphasis on importance of designing early stage strategies for building waste management at post disaster scenarios and following key requirements were introduced which need to be identifi ed prior to designing a strategy: • Prior to disaster management procedure of handling the building waste stream, disposal sites and possible recyclable materials. • The quantity of building waste generated including composition and source. • The capacity of local areas to handle building waste, including number and types of trucks, condition of disposal sites and opportunities to recycle. • The scope of reconstruction works expected in order to identify opportunities for utilization of recycled building waste. • An understanding of governmental and local authority structures in order to place the responsibility for building waste management at the right offi ce. The underlying goals of the strategy should be anchored in the national waste management and environmental policies, as well as taking into account the actual ground situation. In addition, the strategy should provide opportunities for further development of these policies.

Post disaster waste management strategies
Waste management is a discipline associated with control of generation of waste, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing, reuse and recovery and disposal of solid waste in accordance with best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservation of nature, aesthetics and environmental, while considering the general public attitude. Following session provides details of waste management strategies related to each discipline of waste management defi ned above.

Controlling of generating building waste
The initial step of a waste management strategy should be controlling of generating building waste consequent to a disaster. Although total prevention may not be feasible, some measures need be taken to help reduce generation of debris. The EPA in USA in their report (EPA, 2008) indicated that current building codes and planning need to be evaluated to determine whether it will allow a community to withstand disasters prone to that area. Moreover, it has disclosed that many states and communities have compiled hazard mitigation plans that discuss preventative measures aimed at reducing generation of disaster debris. Examples are educating home owners about how to strengthen their homes to resist damages from disasters. Other means of controlling waste generation is the reuse of waste. According to the Strategy for Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Galle, Sri Lanka (COWAM, 2008), building waste materials like bricks, aggregate, steel and timber can be reused without reprocessing. The countries like Indonesia which was severely devastated by the Tsunami, are having successful waste reuse and recycling plans (EC, 2006).

Collecting waste
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA, 2007), debris removal operations generally occur in two phases as initial debris clearance activities necessary to eliminate life and safety threats and debris removal activities as a means of recovery. The transition period from initial clearance activities to debris removal depends on the magnitude of disaster impact. Typically, the debris removal recovery phase begins after the emergency access routes are cleared and police, fi refi ghters and other fi rst responders have necessary access. Further, FEMA (2007) has proposed two methods of building debris collection: curbside collection (mixed debris collection, source-segregated debris collection) and collection centers.

Transporting waste to relevant sites
The most common suggestion of EPA (2008) for a better debris management is to pre select temporary sites that can be used for storing, sorting and processing of debris. These sites can be used to temporarily store debris before transferring to another recycling plant. The site should be selected considering the planned activities such as storing, sorting and processing as well as access by heavy equipment, protection of environmentally sensitive areas and logistical effi ciency. In a disaster situation, it may not be practical to employ a system of waste separation due to amount of debris and time and labor it would require (Treloar et al., 2003;Bekin et al., 2007). According to Selvendran and Mulvey (2005), waste separation system becomes impractical at a post disaster situation as cleanup and recovery became the fi rst priority.

Processing of waste
According to EPA (2008), the waste can be processed in two means as composting and recycling. The composting is most appropriate in case of mixed debris in situations where segregation is costly. The biodegradable materials can be easily composted by means of home composting or centralized composting due to the space problem (Practical Action, 2008). Among the vigorous amount of building debris generated by a disaster, there is an opportu-nity to recycle signifi cant types of materials such as concrete (crushing, pre sizing, sorting, screening and contaminant elimination, metal (ferrous, non ferrous and aluminum), timber (solid softwood) and rubber materials (CMRA, 2008;Eerland, 1995;The Kindred Association, 1994). Recycling should be processed according to market specifi cations of each material and therefore, it needs specifi c plant equipments.

Disposing of waste
After reusing and recycling, the remaining debris should be disposed in landfi lls properly and safely. In order to perform this in an environmental friendly manner, the volume of disposing debris should be minimized up to the maximum possible extent by using incineration (uncontrolled open air incineration, controlled open air incineration, air curtain pit incineration) and chipping and grinding (rubber and metal materials) (FEMA, 2007;EPA, 2008).
As discussed above, reduction is the best and most effi cient method for minimizing generation of waste. It will reduce costs associated with handling and managing of waste disposal processes. Reuse is the most sought-after option after reduction because a minimum of processing and energy use is achieved through reusing waste materials. Since landfi ll volumes are rapidly decreasing in many countries, many communities are considering burning their waste. But this is not a very good way of managing waste since it can make inevitable problems to the environment due to air pollution. According to C&D waste management hierarchy by Peng et al. (1997) landfi ll is the lowest in the hierarchy. Leachate, off-gassing, and potential groundwater contamination are typical problems of landfi lls (Peng et al., 1997). According to author's opinion it should be considered only when all other options have been exhausted.
The Table 1 illustrates the various waste management strategies adopted during past disaster situations.
The Table 1 reveals that the most commonly adopted strategy for building waste management is implementation of recycle plants although there were various problems arising due to operational barriers. Recycling and reusing of building waste conserve natural resources by replacing them with recovered products which perform the same function. This provides for greater savings by decreased consumption of natural resources such as sand, mining, crushed stones or extracting petroleum. Further, it reveals that very few adopted land fi lling as a strategy for building waste management unlike developing countries. The building waste is increasingly being seen as a valuable source of engineering materials for the reconstruction process after a disaster. The management of building waste offers economic benefi ts as well, apart from the environmental benefi ts.

Post disaster waste management models
Disaster waste management models vary according to region and country depending on local conditions. Figure 4 illustrates an internationally recognized solid waste management model produced by United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) in year 2005 (UNEP, 2005). As the initial step, activities of the model should be fully incorporated with legislation and policies established on the basis of environmental protection, solid waste management, waste reduction or avoidance, standard guidelines for land fi lling disposals, fi nancial sustainability, etc. Further, in this combustion, composting and material recovery (reuse and recycling) has been introduced as waste management strategies (UNEP, 2005). In addition to above, various disaster management models were implemented in various disaster situations in the past, as illustrated below. Baycan (2004) introduced a model only for demolition waste management based on the experience of Marmara earthquake, Turkey. In Marmara earthquake, rubble was identifi ed as a major building waste. According to the model, initially the rubble was collected and transported to temporary dump sites during emergency period and subsequently transported to recycling or disposing sites. An identifi ed issue of this process is double handling of waste resulting in high transport costs. The key principles of this model are: • Conservation of natural resources.
• Reduction of quantities of waste for fi nal disposal. • Minimization of negative environmental impacts caused by waste. The priority of the model was given to separation of waste into specifi c components. Initially the waste was distinguished using separation plants with a capacity of 50 tonnes per hour. Screening, wind sifting, hand picking and belt separators are some technologies of the plant that used to differentiate building materials. Finally, the separated materials were sent to reprocessing and reuse (Eerland, 1995).
Most above models were developed for earthquake disasters since the waste can be easily separated and sent to reprocessing and reuse. Further, these models can be identifi ed as having been successfully implemented in developed countries that have experience in frequent disasters, technology know how, expertise etc. For the model to be successful it must be embraced, coordinated and implemented at national, provincial, regional, municipal, institutional and community levels, too.

Post disaster waste management strategies in Sri Lankan context
In Sri Lanka during recent years several disasters occurred island wide. Among these, fl oods and landslides were more frequent disasters, which caused less serious waste management issues and were managed by usual municipal and industrial waste management authorities. Unlike floods and landslides, Tsunami created signifi cant quantity of solid wastes which challenged the national and local capacities. According to the UNEP report (UNEP, 2005), in Sri Lanka about 100,000 of houses have been destroyed generating about 450,000 tons of debris by the Tsunami. Further, it reveals that debris were not properly disposed, reused or managed in Sri Lanka. Also, Perera (2003) has revealed that even there is no proper garbage discharge in Sri Lanka and many drains are blocked with garbage, causing health problems. In this context, economical and environmentally sound waste management programmes are essential not only for disaster waste but also for municipal solid waste management. It has been identifi ed that lack of awareness of mechanisms and systems of post disaster waste management is a critical issue of concern. Following Table 2 indicates waste management strategies adopted during last fi ve years in Sri Lanka.
In developing countries most commonly used strategy is illegal open dumping. Uncontrolled dumping of wastes can have a significant negative public health and environmental impacts through leaching of contaminants into soils and groundwater, increased vermin presence, negative odour and visual impacts. In addition, hazardous and healthcare wastes Source: (Eerland, 1995)  dumped openly are a source of potential harm to people, generating an increase in support needed, particularly critical during an emergency phase, and involve a greater amount of fi nancial resources. In case of Sri Lanka, it is a national issue owing to capacity constraints of available landfi lls of most local authorities, particularly municipal councils. Post disaster waste cannot be overlooked as it occupies a considerable proportion of landfi ll volume due to demolition waste and boom in construction activities after destruction. One major problem is non-availability of landfi lls for such a huge volume of debris left over by a massive destruction. However, in case of the Tsunami, Maldives and Indonesia, with the corporation of UNEP developed a UN Post-Asian Tsunami Waste Management Plan that was launched to remove disaster debris (UNEP, 2005). In the Maldives 16 waste management centers were constructed for waste collection and disposal; preparations were made for construction of further 22 waste management centers and a regional waste management facility. In Indonesia over one million cubic meters of Tsunami waste were cleared and almost one hundred cubes of municipal waste collected through reestablished municipal waste collection systems (EC, 2006).
In many developing countries, building waste is not recovered and reused at its optimum capacity, including Sri Lanka. Most of reusable and recyclable materials are disposed to landfi ll sites due to insuffi cient knowledge about recycling (Brodin and Anderson, 2008). Further discussions on above will be forthcoming at following sections of this paper.

SURVEY FINDINGS
Stakeholders involved in waste management process have important roles to play and this should be linked to resource conservation, environmental protection, sustainable development, health and sanitation issues and disaster preparedness. Within this context, it is important to identify strategies, issues and challenges in post disaster waste management at national level institutes in Sri Lanka as they are responsible for planning and implementing of these strategies.  Figure 6 illustrates the inter-relationship of government and non government institutions with the DMC in order to carry out disaster mitigation and preparedness plans. Although the institutional arrangement is fi gured as follows, its involvement in disaster waste management is considerably less (DMC, 2006).
According to the Disaster Management Centre and Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (DMC, 2006), the national level institutions are involved in policy decision, resource allocation and prioritization of activities, budget allocation and monitoring of disaster management plans. All other disaster waste related activities are delegated to district level and regional level institutions. A summarized fi nding of pilot survey is illustrated at the Table 3.
Results of the survey reveals that although there are national level polices for disaster management such as Disaster Management Act and national waste management policies, there are no provisions for disaster waste management. It only states that Disaster Management Council shall provide protection for environment and maintain and develop affected areas. Disaster Management Act, No 13 of 2005No 13 of (2005 and the National Environmental Act, No 47 of 1980No 47 of (1980 has regulated that persons should get a license from the Central Environmental Authority regarding collection, transportation, storing, recovering, recycling or disposing of waste. The Central Environmental Authority has been empowered by the act to specify guidelines regarding all operations of waste. But the act doesn't possess any framework for managing disaster waste. This situation proves that it is near impossible to have a specifi c disaster waste management industry in Sri Lanka.

DISCUSSION
The disasters affect the country in many ways (Alexander, 1997;Shaw and Goda, 2004). The costs of disasters are not just those caused to populations that suffer their direct impacts. The international image of a disaster-prone nation also suffers and inward investment can be affected, creating negative multiplier effects on jobs and wages throughout an economy. Disasters are fi rst and foremost a major threat to development and specifi cally a threat to development of poorest and most marginalized people in the world. Disasters seek out the poor and ensure that they remain poor (Cherpitat, 2004cited RICS, 2006. Therefore, disaster management strategies of both pre and post disaster scenarios should be adopted effectively to achieve development opportunities through out the dreadful results of disasters (Eceberger, 2006). Disaster Management Centre Involve with pre disaster management activities such as preparation of plans for mitigation, preparedness and response phases from national level to regional levels. But there are no provisions for disaster waste management in any of the policies or plans.

Centsral Environment Authority
Although CEA is the key national level organization for waste management, there are no special provisions for disaster waste management. Same rules and regulations applied for municipal waste management adopted for the same. Waste management strategies which need to implement will be decided after the disaster. Same principle applied when the Tsunami occurred and led to lot of environmental issues which are encountered even today such as frequent fl oods.

Marian Pollution and Prevention Authority
This is the only institute which prepared a disaster waste management plan, for oil spilling disaster situations in the sea.

National Disaster Relief Center
Involved with all the post disaster management activities except waste management.

Post Disaster Waste Management Strategies in Developing Countries: Case of Sri Lanka
To develop a coordinated, countrywide approach for managing disaster debris, implementation of a disaster management plan is essential. By planning ahead, disaster-related waste can be managed in a very environmentally sound manner, maximizing source reduction and recycling and minimizing land disposal of these materials (Alameda Country Waste Management Authority, 1998). A disaster debris management plan can help a community identify options for collecting, recycling and disposing of debris. Not only does a plan identify management options and sources for help, but it also can save valuable time and resources if it is needed. Survey revealed that there are no precise regulations in order to minimize generation of building waste resulting a disaster in the Sri Lankan context (UNEP, 2005). Only few regulations such as restrictions on buildings within 300m distance from the sea shore has been imposed by the Coast Conservation Department. But it seems that those regulations also not observed properly by citizens. Main reason for failure of implementation of rules, strategies and plans is that at most instances they are dictated from top levels with minimal or zero input from people directly impacted. In addition, they are ill informed of realities of most peoples' lives and therefore, often unrealistic and prone to failure. As a result, unplanned disposal of waste in environmentally sensitive sites cause numerous problems since it consumes a considerable proportion of already scarce land fi lling sites.
Identification of disposal sites, possible recycling facilities, capacities of local areas and understanding of government and local authority structures to place responsibility for building waste management is not clearly distinguished in Sri Lanka. Specifi cally at national level, enforcement is lacking in policy making related to disaster waste management. However, rules and regulations connected to national solid waste management comprise of National Environment Act, Predeshiya Sabha Act and Urban and Municipal Council Ordinances which also impose restrictions on management of waste. The National Environmental Act restricts dumping of solid waste into environmentally sensitive sites and provides for powers of the Central Environmental Authority (Perera, 2003). The local government Acts and Ordinances state that local authorities are responsible for proper removal of non-industrial solid waste and should provide proper sites for dumping of solid waste (Perera, 2003). Although the government enacted Disaster Management Act, No 13 of 2005No 13 of (2005 in May 2005 to provide a legal basis for disaster risk management (DRM) in the country, there are no provisions for management of disaster waste as previously discussed.
Apart from non-availability of institutional framework, lack of coordination and communication, non-availability of district and divisional contingency plans, political will and inadequate capacity are identifi ed as key issues in disaster waste management in Sri Lanka (Hettiarachchi, 2007). For the individual in a developing country, losses resulting from disasters can be more severe in magnitude and take a much longer time to recover than a person in an industrialized nation (Ofori, 2004).
Lack of fi nancial capability is a major contributing factor preventing a county from obtaining required physical resources such as equipment and infrastructure to launch successful long-term post disaster management programmes in developing countries. Within this context lack of intellectual capacity such as lack of knowledge, expertise and training related to post disaster management with relevant local authorities/ institutions is another key barrier in implementing sustainable disaster management programmes. The brain drain, lack of proper coordination between relevant authorities/ institutions and immature organizational processes can also be highlighted as issues of intellectually incapacitated countries (Keraminiyage et al., 2008). As Baycan and Petersen (2002) stated, "An important aspect of any intervention following natural disasters or confl icts is that of capacity building and employment generation". Identifi cation of current capacity gaps is an essential task for Sri Lanka to overcome problems in post disaster waste management attempts. According to DMC current capacities of Sri Lankan institutions are inadequate for successful disaster management (JICA Study Team on comprehensive Disaster Management in Sri Lanka, 2007). Overall goal of the Disaster Management Centre of Sri Lanka is to mitigate damages cause by natural disasters in Sri Lanka by strengthening capacities of related organizations and communities. Capacity building is the best approach to a continuous process which delivers better services by developing and strengthening skills, instincts, abilities, processes and resources that organizations and communities need to survive, adapt, and thrive in a fast-changing world (Sivamainthan et al., 2008).
In national level disasters need to be understood as products of cumulative decisions taken over long periods, because then the processes by which these choices were made become a focal point for potential change (Campbell, 1999). Decisions taken in response to a specifi c disaster become defi ning elements for (temporary) resolution of that crisis, but also likely steps toward creation of the next crisis (Campbell, 1999). Therefore, disaster management should take place in a logical and practical manner to facilitate potential management of future disasters. Poulsen (2007) indicated that capacity building in waste management consists of following streams specifi cally at national level institutions: • Elaboration of appropriate legislation and regulations. • Development of effective and effi cient scientifi c solutions and technology. • Development and improvement of organizational structures.
• Appropriate training and practice that gives staff the right knowledge and tools to fulfi ll their jobs in an effective and effi cient way. To comply with above requirements, Disaster Management Act of Sri Lanka imposed capacity building among persons living in areas vulnerable to disasters in relation to risk management and application of disaster management and mitigation practices as main functions of the National Council for Disaster Management. However, according to annual report of NDMC 2006(DMC, 2006, the DMC experienced diffi culties in carrying out its task due to lack of legal power vested with it to implement. According to disaster management hierarchy, the DMC is the central regulatory body and all other national institutions lie under DMC. Therefore, enough legal powers are required by DMC to enforce powers granted by the Disaster Management Act. Furthermore, as indicated at NDMC Annual Report 2006 (DMC, 2006), it is suffering from incapacities on transport and communication, diffi culties in recruiting staff, offi ce accommodation and infrastructure development.
Building waste has a significant importance to ensure reconstruction by salvaging large amount of materials for reuse and recycle (Baycan and Petersen, 2002). Europe Aid Co-operation Offi ce (2006) in their research has revealed that Sri Lankan reuse and recycling industry is limited only to demolition contractors and there are only eighteen known demolition and reuse contractors in Sri Lanka. Main obstacles for recycling building waste management are: • It's relatively a new practice. The country has used to remove all waste by disposing or land fi lling and there's great resistance to changing of such procedures. • Limited recycling markets.
Markets often either exists locally or re-cyclers don't accept a broader spectrum of building waste. • Limited market awareness.
Many building contractors are not aware of reuse and recycling opportunities. Due to that, consumer willingness to buy recycled materials is very less. • More costly. This is due to high cost of some available recycling techniques. • Require more space.
Recycling processes need more space for sorting, storage and recycling (RBAC, 2008). Further, REA indicated that waste removal programs conducted at district levels with collaboration of NGOs do not consistently meet current best practices due to lack of readily available guidance, practical procedures and resources (Shaw, 2003;Martin, 2007).
Other critical issue in failure of waste management process is resistant to change. Most victims of the Tsunami are low-income less educated people living along coastal lines of Sri Lanka. Therefore, any signifi cant social change needs to occur within context of their individual attitudes and behaviors .

CONCLUSIONS
Disaster is not a new phenomenon and the human race, from its very appearance on this planet has faced the fury of natural hazards that has had devastating impacts towards communities and the environment. Although human loss is the true tragedy of a disaster, destruction of buildings and infrastructure can also be considered as a signifi cant loss for the economy as well as the ecosystem. Those ruined buildings and infrastructure generate tre-mendous quantity of debris including rubble, concrete, bricks steel and timber which place an additional burden on a community to cope up with. Conversely, reconstruction of after a major disaster poses a tremendous challenge to any government as well as relevant community. Therefore, in rebuilding, the paramount consideration should be to building waste management strategies following any disaster situation.
Sri Lanka experiences a variety of disasters with immense damages to livelihoods, interrupting their economic and social activities. Among those, the Tsunami of December 2004, was the most devastating disaster Sri Lanka experienced in the recent past. Literature survey revealed that 450, 000 tonnes of building waste was generated by the Tsunami in 13 districts in Sri Lanka. Further, it is well known that majority of those building debris were disposed in irregular ways creating number of environmental and social issues. Although other countries are having well planned waste management strategies, there are no specifi c policies or regulations regarding disaster waste management in Sri Lanka. Further, it revealed that controlling and collecting building waste in Sri Lanka is geared up less effectively because existing rules and regulations do not have legal enforceability or a mode to compel regular compliance. Further, building waste recycling projects have not been implemented in Sri Lanka due to lack of funds, plant and new technology, unfamiliarity and unawareness of recycled building materials etc. In brief, non-availability of institutional framework, lack of coordination and communication, nonavailability of district and divisional contingency plans, political will and inadequate capacity are identifi ed as key issues related with disaster waste management in Sri Lanka.