Operational Review: IFRC-DREF Response to the 2023–2024 Floods in Sri Lanka

Country: Sri Lanka Sources: Canadian Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Please refer to the attached file. Executive Summary Commissioned by the IFRC-DREF Coordination Team, this operational review examines three Sri Lanka Red Cross Society (SLRCS) flood response operations supported by IFRC‐DREF between 2023 and 2024. The review assesses their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and contributions to longer‐term preparedness and Anticipatory Action (AA). Conducted between August and December 2025, the review draws on extensive desk analysis, field interviews across multiple districts, and surveys with SLRCS staff, volunteers, community members, government counterparts, and Movement partners. Participants included National Society staff involved in the reviewed operations, community members, and staff from the Asia-Pacific Regional Office (APRO) and the Cluster Delegation for India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. The findings are primarily intended for the IFRC-DREF Team, Operations Coordination Teams, the Sri Lanka Red Cross Society, and the Asia-Pacific Regional Office and Cluster Delegation, with the aim of strengthening the development and implementation of DREF operations as well to understand the limitations of expanding Anticipatory Action plans under IFRC-DREF across the country. The review found that all three flood operations were highly relevant to the needs of flood-affected communities, with responses combining multipurpose cash assistance, health services, WASH interventions, shelter repair, school support and, in the most recent operation, livelihoods support and enhanced epidemic/dengue control. Appropriateness was generally rated “excellent” or “good” by staff, volunteers, authorities and female community members, though male community members and women in large households pointed to persistent shelter and sanitation gaps, flat cash transfer values and unmet structural mitigation needs such as drainage and canal works. CEA was a major strength across all operations. SLRCS and IFRC applied a range of tools (community meetings, household visits, disaggregated data collection, hotlines, social media, door-to-door outreach and formal complaints mechanisms) to inform populations, clarify selection criteria and gather feedback. These feedback loops directly shaped programmatic choices, including the adjustment of cash amounts to reflect inflation and household size, modifications to delivery methods in remote areas, and updates to SOPs and distribution planning. Nevertheless, a gendered participation gap emerged: while most KII respondents felt communities influenced adjustments, women across groups reported that their engagement remained insufficient, suggesting that general CEA systems need to be complemented by specific measures to strengthen women’s voice in decisions. In terms of efficiency and effectiveness, the three operations were characterised by rapid mobilisation (often beginning before DREF approval), strong budget execution and the achievement or surpassing of most KPIs, especially in WASH, health, cash and overall people reached. However, shortfalls were observed in some medical camps/first aid activities, CVA for refugees and volunteer mobilization targets, mainly due to external approvals, overlapping assistance from other actors, and logistical constraints. The MDRLK018 operation required a significant extension (to nine months) and a more than doubled budget, underscoring that the standard three-to-four-month DREF timeframe was insufficient for complex, multisector flood responses in this context. Recurrent bottlenecks included procurement delays (e.g. mosquito nets), tax exemptions, health department approvals, elections, non-digital beneficiary data and branch-level finance/logistics limitations. Coordination emerged as a systemic strength. The operations were firmly anchored within national structures – Disaster Management Centre (DMC), District and Divisional Secretariats, Ministry of Health (MoH), National Water Board, Irrigation Department, National Building Research Organization (NBRO) and Tri‐forces (Army, Navy, Airforce) - with SLRCS playing a central role in Cash and WASH Technical Working Groups (TWGs) and leveraged complementary support from UN and NGO partners. This resulted in harmonised cash grant design using the Minimum Expenditure Basket and reduced duplication in relief distribution. At the same time, the operations produced tangible positive impacts on household wellbeing (food security, safe water, health, safety, education continuity) and built institutional capacities in assessments, first aid, warehouse management, CVA, CEA, MHPSS communication and coordination. However, the review found limited formalization of links to longer-term recovery, DRR and AA. No explicit exit strategies were documented, the sustainability of PGI and health initiatives beyond the response was unclear, and DRR elements such as communit

Read More