Sri Lanka begins UNESCO’s updated AI readiness assessment

Sri Lanka is among the first countries applying UNESCO’s updated AI Readiness Assessment Methodology, RAM 2.0. The process, described in a 22 October announcement, is intended to identify what the country needs to develop and use AI responsibly before turning those findings into policy recommendations.[1]

Who is doing the assessment

UNESCO is working with the Ministry of Digital Economy and a national steering committee that met on 20 May and 2 September. The committee brings together government, business, academic and civil-society participants. Colombo-based digital-policy think tank LIRNEasia is the implementation partner.[1]

The planned output is a report supporting Sri Lanka’s digital-transformation agenda and proposed national AI strategy. An assessment can identify institutional gaps and priorities; the subsequent choices about funding, procurement or legal rules remain matters for national policy.[1]

Consultation beyond the capital

UNESCO says discussions are planned in Colombo, Jaffna, Kandy, Batticaloa and Galle over the coming months. The announcement identifies intended consultations, not completed meetings or findings from those communities.[1]

The geographic spread matters because a national picture can be distorted by its best-connected institutions. A useful account of readiness has to ask where skills, infrastructure and access differ. Purchasing computing capacity, for example, does not by itself establish that an institution can maintain data quality or evaluate a supplier’s system. These are questions for the assessment, rather than reported conclusions about Sri Lankan agencies.

A newer version of an established programme

As of August 2026, UNESCO reported RAM deployments in more than 75 countries and completed exercises in 60, including India, Bangladesh and Maldives. Those figures cover the wider programme, not 60 completed assessments under the newer RAM 2.0.[1]

For Sri Lanka, the next concrete output is the assessment report. Its usefulness will depend on making the priorities specific enough to act on: which capability is missing, which institution can address it and how progress can be checked.[1]

Report an error or suggest a correction