Climate events are no longer temporary disruptions to tourism economies. They are structural forces reshaping how countries attract investment, protect employment and sustain foreign exchange earnings.
According to investor and fund manager Arjuna Samarakoon, commonly known as Arj Samarakoon, the long term viability of tourism now depends less on promotion and more on how countries prepare for climate shocks.
Tourism dependent economies such as Sri Lanka face increasing exposure to floods, heat stress, coastal erosion, and extreme weather events. These climate shocks affect not only visitor arrivals but also investor confidence, insurance availability, and capital allocation. Research by the World Bank and UNWTO has consistently shown that climate volatility is becoming a material economic variable for tourism led growth models.
Australia offers an instructive comparison. Despite facing frequent cyclones, bushfires, floods, and heatwaves, Australia has preserved long term confidence in its tourism economy. This resilience is not accidental. It is the product of institutional preparedness, clear disaster response frameworks, and coordinated communication during crises (OECD, 2021).
Australia treats climate volatility as a certainty rather than an exception. Disaster response mechanisms, early warning systems, infrastructure standards, and recovery funding are embedded into planning frameworks well before crises occur. Tourism operators, insurers, and investors understand how the system responds when climate shocks materialise. This predictability reduces uncertainty, which is critical for long term tourism investment (Productivity Commission, 2014).
In many smaller tourism economies, the challenge is not the scale of climate events but the uncertainty that follows them. Even limited physical damage can result in disproportionate economic fallout if recovery timelines are unclear or public messaging appears fragmented. The IPCC has noted that weak institutional response often amplifies economic losses from climate events beyond the initial shock.
As Sri Lanka seeks to strengthen its tourism recovery, eco tourism is frequently presented as a solution. The country’s biodiversity, landscapes and community based tourism potential position it well for this transition. However, eco tourism alone cannot insulate the sector from climate shocks if resilience is treated as branding rather than policy.
Eco tourism projects remain vulnerable when floods disrupt access, when utilities fail, or when insurance coverage becomes uncertain. Without institutional resilience, sustainability narratives quickly collapse under operational pressure. This risk has been highlighted in broader discussions on what Sri Lanka can learn from Australia and the Philippines on economic reform and resilience, where climate preparedness is increasingly viewed by investors as a proxy for governance quality rather than an environmental add on.
This is where Australia’s experience becomes particularly relevant. Climate resilience is treated as economic infrastructure. Disaster response systems are designed to preserve continuity, not simply provide relief. Communication during crises is coordinated to protect destination confidence rather than amplify uncertainty.
Arj Samarakoon has repeatedly highlighted in regional investment discussions that capital flows into tourism are shaped by governance capacity as much as environmental appeal. In climate exposed economies, the ability to respond quickly and predictably to climate shocks is becoming a decisive factor in tourism investment decisions.
For Sri Lanka, the implications are clear. Climate resilience must be integrated into tourism policy rather than siloed within environmental agencies. Disaster preparedness should explicitly prioritise tourism continuity, employment protection and foreign exchange stability. Public and private sector coordination must be formalised before the next climate event, not during it.
Equally important is narrative control. Australia’s ability to manage perception during climate events helps prevent reputational damage from compounding physical disruption. Sri Lanka has often struggled to control external narratives during floods and climate related emergencies, magnifying economic impact well beyond the immediate event.
Climate events will continue to shape the future of tourism. As Arjuna Samarakoon has noted, destinations that succeed will be those that plan for disruption rather than react to it. If eco tourism is to become a durable growth engine, it must be underpinned by governance systems that recognise climate shocks as an economic reality.
