From ruin to resilience: What the 2004 tsunami taught us about disaster recovery

Twenty years ago today, a 9.1-magnitude earthquake unleashed a tsunami across the Indian Ocean region. Towering waves, some as high as 100 feet, obliterated coastal communities, killing over 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. The extent of the destruction was staggering, but the lessons it taught about disaster recovery, environmental stewardship, and the power of local knowledge continue to resonate. Those lessons feel especially urgent now, as another record-breaking hurricane season shows how a warming climate is intensifying disaster risk in the US and across the globe. 

We arrived in Aceh, Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami—one of us an expert in humanitarian response, the other in environmental conservation—and found devastation on a scale to rival the worst war zones in human history. As far as the eye could see, a grim line of demarcation clearly showed where the ocean’s onslaught had finally come to an end. On one side of the line, the unscathed homes of the lucky few. On the other side, a vast debris field where the skeletal husks of cars, upended boats, and crumbling buildings lay half-buried in the mud. Two decades later, the stench that wafted from that toxic bog still lingers in the memory. 

The only way we know how to make sense of such incalculable loss is to learn from it. Disasters tend to lay bare critical weaknesses in our ecological and social systems, and the 2004 tsunami was no exception. 

In the months and years that followed, many well-intentioned recovery efforts failed to consider environmental factors, often exacerbating the crisis. Communities were relocated to areas more at risk from future extreme events. Debris piled near shorelines suffocated ecosystems vital for local livelihoods. The sudden rapid overexploitation of timber and sand destabilized landscapes, triggering soil erosion and landslides. And the influx of boats and fishing gear—supplied by relief agencies to revive the decimated fishing industry—drew a significant number of people from outside the area, desperate for work. This sudden surge strained local marine ecosystems already in decline, disrupted traditional fishing practices, and fueled conflicts among fisherfolk, ultimately setting local communities and ecosystems on a precarious downward trajectory.

These missteps underscored the need to balance urgent recovery with reducing future risks and promoting long-term sustainability. Over time, these lessons have reshaped how the world approaches disaster recovery, with nature and local communities increasingly at the center.

Today, there is growing recognition that nature isn’t just a victim of disasters—it’s part of the solution. Rapid Environmental Assessments, for example, evaluate environmental risks and opportunities early in recovery planning, so as to avoid rebuilding the same weaknesses that existed in the first place. “Nature-based solutions” leverage healthy, functioning ecosystems and the services they provide to protect communities. Mangroves can act as storm buffers, wetlands absorb floodwaters, and coral reefs can shield coastlines from wave energy. Rebuilding with these systems in mind can also strengthen local economies. For instance, adopting sustainable practices in agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture reduces waste, conserves resources, and creates more resilient livelihoods.

Examples of green recovery around the world showcase its potential. In Turkey, new disaster-resistant homes use eco-friendly materials that reduce environmental impact while improving durability. In Ukraine, wartime rebuilding efforts have embraced microgrids—decentralized, low-carbon energy systems less vulnerable to disruption. And in the US, projects like the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan have restored marshlands and built living shorelines to protect against flooding and erosion while also supporting biodiversity. These examples illustrate how combining human ingenuity with natural resilience can reduce costs, protect ecosystems, and create stronger communities.

Equally transformative is the trend toward “localization” in disaster recovery. After the tsunami, it became clear that recovery efforts designed and driven by local communities—referred to in those days as “owner-driven” projects— were far more successful than those imposed by outside donors. Owner-driven housing projects empowered communities to rebuild homes suited to their specific needs and environments, while donor-driven efforts often imposed one-size-fits-all solutions that failed to account for local realities. Recognizing this, entities like the US Agency for International Development have committed to channeling 25% of their funding through local organizations, increasing the likelihood that recovery efforts align with cultural, environmental, and economic contexts.

The humanitarian sector has also had to confront the escalating impacts of climate change. More frequent and intense weather events have forced responders to integrate climate considerations into recovery planning. Recovery efforts increasingly incorporate tools like climate modeling to predict risks, while green infrastructure such as rain gardens and permeable pavements are being used to manage urban flooding. This shift represents a critical evolution: the varied and compounding impacts of climate change are no longer abstract threats but a direct and growing challenge—one that is reshaping how we think about disaster risk reduction and resilience.

Despite progress, challenges remain. Traditional engineering solutions still dominate in many regions. In Valencia, Spain, for example, outdated channelization methods worsened flooding during an unprecedented rainstorm in 2024, showing the limits of these rigid approaches. Blending natural infrastructure with innovative engineering offers a more adaptable path forward, combining human ingenuity with the strengths of natural systems.

Modernizing disaster recovery means embedding environmental considerations into every stage of the process. Projects like Turkey’s eco-friendly housing and Ukraine’s microgrids offer blueprints for employing sustainable materials, decentralized energy, and climate-resilient agriculture in the rebuilding process. Regenerative farming practices and aquaculture standards tailored to local conditions can restore livelihoods while preparing for future risks. These strategies not only reduce the risk to and impact of various extreme events but also improve overall quality of life.

To integrate these approaches effectively into disaster recovery, both the humanitarian and the environmental sectors must invest in working together and invest in training the next generation of practitioners. Working with local communities and local organizations and building capacity within professional organizations lays the groundwork for recovery efforts that reduce future risk and are responsive to the challenges of a changing world.

Reflecting on the Indian Ocean tsunami, the lesson is simple yet profound: effective and enduring disaster recovery means going beyond rebuilding what was lost. We must build forward, embracing nature’s protective, restorative, and sustaining power. We owe it to the past, and to the future, to get this right.

Anita van Breda is the Senior Director of Environment and Disaster Management at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), with over two decades of expertise at the intersection of conservation and disaster management. She leads WWF’s efforts to promote environmentally responsible disaster recovery, reconstruction, and risk reduction, focusing on international policy, field operations, and capacity-building initiatives. 

Robert Laprade is the Senior Director for Humanitarian Partnerships at Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), with over 20 years of experience managing humanitarian responses to natural disasters, armed conflicts, and prolonged refugee crises across Africa and Asia. He oversaw global emergency response activities for major NGOs, developing international standards for high-quality humanitarian interventions.