In an island such as Sri Lanka it is natural that people, especially the coastal communities, thrive from the sea. Small fishing villages, to large more developed communities rely on the sea for its livelihood. In the past 30 years, tourism has been the other major industry that has development in coastal belts, sustaining large communities around them. Its no small wonder that most of our coasts, from Yala to Puttalam are highly populated and that infrastructure to serve these communities have developed in close proximity to the sea.

Prior to the Tsunami of December 26, 2004 the Coastal Management plan stipulated a set back of 30 to 50 meters from the vegetation line for building development. Buildings constructed before these regulations were enforced have been allowed to stand and Colombo is a good example where hotels and houses are right next to the sea. Needless to say the rationale for Coastal Conservation based on prevention of sea erosion, conservation of vegetation and eco life in the areas are very sound. There is no argument that we need to control and plan the development in the coastal areas.

Shortly after the Tsunami inundated Sri Lankan coasts with a vengeance, new laws to restrict buildings within 100 meters of the vegetation and depending on the location, a further zone 200 to 300 meters have been proposed. The problem with this regulation, is that is seems rational at first, but really is counter productive if it is to save lives from future Tsunamis.

A few days after the Tsunami, I had the fortune of meeting a team of scientists sponsored by the United States National Scientific Fund (USNSF), who were touring the coasts of Sri Lanka and studying the impact of the Tsunami. The team included scientists from the United States Geological Survey as well as several academics and consultants on coastal and geological matters.

We were having lunch at a hotel in Kalutara, when one of the scientists said, "people need to be aware that in the event of another Tsunami, the best possible evacuation would be vertical evacuation. In this three story hotel, all the guests and staff should evacuate to upper floors". I said, "that is precisely what happened and in fact nobody was injured as they were all evacuated". In fact in most of the southern coastal areas, the staff and guests of the hotels were safely evacuated to upper levels and the casualty figures were very low.

The problem with vertical evacuation is that in most of the fishing villages in the east and the south there, were no buildings to evacuate to! As we all know, the highest deaths were in areas where the terrain was flat and the only buildings were simple single story structures. The only people that survived were the ones that were lucky enough to find a tall tree or were able to out run the wave. The hotels in Yala and Arugam Bay that had high casualties were single story structures that did not survive the impact of the waves. Most survivors clung to trees.

Authorities who are in the process of enforcing no build zones on the coastal zone as a post Tsunami lesson need to be guided by scientists from institutions in the United States and Japan who specialize in coastal hazards and propose legislature for minimizing risks. Buildings in the coastal zone should be engineered to allow free flow of water at ground floor level. In the event of the next Tsunami, we need to be prepared with an Early Warning system, and more importantly educate people on the methods of evacuating to higher ground. We must understand the need for buildings that are structurally sound, and will withstand a Tsunami, so that people have shelters to evacuate to. A no build zone of 300 meters, will only save lives if we were able to strictly enforce a no go zone in the beach and coastal belt!