Nepal Disaster Report 2017: The Road To Sendai

Government of Nepal
Ministry of Home Affairs
Nepal Disaster
Report 2017
The Road to Sendai
December 2017
Nepal Disaster
Report 2017
The Road to Sendai
Government of Nepal
Ministry of Home Affairs
December 2017
Editorial Board:
Kedar Neupane, Joint Secretary, Disaster Management Division, MoHA
Umesh Dhakal, Undersecretary, Disaster Management Division, MoHA
Shankar Hari Acharya, Undersecretary, Disaster Management Division, MoHA
Chakra Pani Pandey, Undersecretary, Disaster Management Division, MoHA
Vijaya P Singh, Assistant Country Director, UNDP Nepal
Dr. Hari Darshan Shrestha, Disaster Preparedness Network Nepal (DPNet-Nepal)
Copyright © Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof, however, may be reproduced or used in
educational, training, awareness raising and capacity building purposes without the written
permission of the publisher with due acknowledgements of the source. Any part of this publication
may be cited, copied, translated in other languages or adopted to meet local needs with prior
permission from MoHA. The opinion expressed in this publication belongs to the individual authors
and does not necessarily represent the official position of the publisher.
Publisher:
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal
Supported by:
UNDP Nepal
Disaster Preparedness Network Nepal (DPNet-Nepal)
ISBN Number: 978-9937-0-4217-8
Preferred citation style:

Ministry of Home Affairs. (2018). Nepal Disaster Report, 2017: The Road to Sendai, Kathmandu:
Government of Nepal.
.
Office of the United Nations ;+o'Qm /fi6« ;+3sf] cfjf;Lo
Resident Coordinator +;+of]hssf] sfof{no
Foreword
The fifth National Disaster Report (NDR) represents a major achievement for the Ministry of Home Affairs
(MoHA). Covering the 2015 to 2017, it presents a wealth of information and analysis – much of it related
to the April 2015 earthquake and subsequent aftershocks. Colleagues from MoHA have done an admirable
job in consolidating data from a broad variety of sources and translating it into a document which is both
accessible and concise.
In reading the latest NDR one is reminded of the overwhelming impact of the 7.6 magnitude earthquake
which occurred on Saturday 25th April 2015. The NDR also captures the cross-government response and
the challenges that the Nepali authorities faced in responding to the needs of earthquake affected persons.
The candour of the latest NDR is refreshing; it does not shy away from recognising the difficulties and
issues that impeded the earthquake response. In being open and reflective we are all able to learn lessons
that might improve future responses.
Emanating from the fifth NDR is the country’s will toward stronger disaster management and resilience.
Whilst the impact of the 2015 earthquake are felt to this day, the Government of Nepal during 2016 and
2017 showed a commitment to fundamentally strengthen how it manages disaster risk. The enactment of
the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act in September 2017 is the best example of the
Government’s leadership on the disaster resilience agenda, and commitment toward sustainable
development.
I would like to commend MoHA’s vital role in disaster management and the important contributions that
different Government officials from MoHA have made over a number of years on disaster resilience and
preparedness and response. The UN looks forward to continuing our collaboration with the Government of
Nepal on this agenda in the years to come.
Valerie Julliand
UN Resident Coordinator in Nepal
Nepal Disaster Report 2017
The Road to Sendai
xi
Editorial
Due to its rugged topography, ecological adversity, prevalence of a number of flood-prone rivers,
rapid and unplanned urbanization, poverty, inequality and uneven development, Nepal is exposed
to a variety of natural and man induced disasters. More than 80 percent of the total population of
Nepal is at risk from natural hazards, such as floods, landslides, windstorms, hailstorms, fires,
earthquakes and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods. Nepal is also in a seismically active zone with a
high probability for massive earthquakes. All these factors place Nepal among the 20 most disaster-
prone countries in the world.
A review of disaster data for last the 45 years indicates that the incidences of disasters are growing
every year in Nepal. The available information system on disaster captures the human impacts
of disaster, economic losses and environmental damages and show that disaster erodes about
two percent of national GDP annually. Nepal is one of the countries in South Asia where ‘affect to
killed ratio’ due to disaster is high. This clearly indicates that our emergency response mechanisms
need serious improvement and up-scaling and our future activities must focus not only on disaster
response but also on preparedness and mitigation.
The present NDR 2017 focuses on how to achieve the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction
(SFDRR) (2015-2030) successfully, building on the achievements during Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA 2005 – 2015) period and other on-going political, administrative reforms including the
new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017.
The NDR 2017 has six chapters that present an overview of disaster scenario of a period of two
years (2015 and 2016). Chapter 1 is introduction, containing the background, purpose and process
of NDR 2017 and a summary of the methodology, key messages of the earlier NDRs and lessons
learnt from HFA. Chapter 2 is a review and analysis of disaster statistics from 2015 and 2016, a
review of the DIMS and disaster management stakeholders, key hazards, issues of safeguarding
development gains. Chapter 3 describes the 2015 mega-earthquake, documenting experiences
on relief operation, recovery and reconstruction and volunteerism. Chapter 4 focuses on DRM
regulatory frameworks such as the Constitution of Nepal (2015), DRRM Act (2017), and other
policy frameworks. Chapter 5 describes how to achieve SFDRR based on HFA achievements,
initiatives taken since Yokohama Strategy (1994) and other international commitments and efforts
on mainstreaming Disaster Risk reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) into
development process. The last chapter, Chapter 6 focuses on how Nepal can achieve SFDRR
targets within its stipulated time frame (together with SDGs), possible challenges while striving to
achieve SFDRR and key priorities for the next few years.
xii The Road to Sendai
Executive Summary
NDR 2017: Purpose and Process. Nepal is exposed to a variety of natural hazards and human
induced disasters. More than 80 percent of the total population of Nepal is at risk from natural
hazards, such as floods, landslides, windstorms, hailstorms, fires, earthquakes and Glacial Lake
Outburst Floods (GLOFs). The country is among the 20 most disaster-prone countries in the world.
In part, this is because Nepal is in a seismically active zone with a high probability for massive
earthquake. Globally, Nepal ranks 4th and 11th in terms of its relative vulnerability to climate change
and earthquakes, respectively (Maplecroft 2011, BCPR 2004 cited in MoHA 2015). Out of 21 cities
around the world that lie in similar seismic hazard zones, Kathmandu city is at highest risk in terms
of impact on people.
Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), Nepal Government has been producing biennial disaster reports
(Nepal Disaster Report – NDR) since 2009 with support from different development partners and
stakeholders such as UNDP, Disaster Preparedness Network (DPNet-Nepal), Nepal Red Cross
Society (NRCS) and others. The published series of NDRs includes NDR 2009, NDR 2011, NDR
2013 and NDR 2015. The publication of NDR 2017 has been a joint initiative between MoHA,
UNDP and DPNet-Nepal.
The main purpose of NDR 2017 is to highlight Nepal’s experiences in DRM over the last two years
(2015 and 2016), documenting key learnings and challenges in the course of managing disaster risk
and identifying future priority actions for effective disaster response, risk reduction and recovery.
Data for the report was collected and analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Key documents (published and unpublished) on DRR and CCA were obtained from relevant
ministries and departments, development partner organizations and academic institutions working
on disaster risk management issues. This was complemented by open access online documents
retrieved mostly from the worldwide web and interactions held with disaster risk management
professionals. The NDR has also compiled information on loss of lives, damage of houses,
disappearance of people and injury from various disaster events that happened in Nepal during the
period of the review.
Key Hazards, Human Casualties and Socio-Economic Losses. Disaster dataset maintained by
MoHA in its archives records disaster loss and damage data for a total of 16 kinds of active disasters
in Nepal. Noted in alphabetic order they are: asinapani (heavy rainfall with hailstones), avalanche,
boat capsize, cold wave, drowning, earthquake, epidemic, fire, flood, heavy rainfall, high altitude,
The Road to Sendai
xiii
landslide, lightning, snow storm, wind storm, and the “other” category. This well illustrates Nepal’s
vulnerability to multiple hazards.
According to the MoHA dataset, 13 types of disasters were recorded during the last two years with a
total number of 2,940 disaster events. Of the total disaster events, incidents of fire are the highest in
number (N=1,856), followed by incidents of lightning (N=299), landslide (N=290), flood (N=244) and
heavy rainfall (N=118). In terms of death, disappearance as well as human injuries, earthquakes
caused the most loss. For example, during 2015 and 2016, a total of 9,708 human deaths were
recorded as a result of different disasters, out of which the mega Earthquake of 2015 alone claimed
8,970 lives (92.5 percent) (MoHA 2016). Landslides, lightning, fire and floods together claimed the
lives of 666 people in total in those two years.
In terms of damage, disaster statistics maintained by MoHA reveal that a total of one million, eighty-
five thousand, seven hundred ninety-seven houses were damaged during the review period, of
which 98.7 percent houses were damaged by the earthquake. A host of other disasters, caused
by fire and landslide (each damaging 0.3 percent houses of the total damaged) and flood, heavy
rainfall and windstorm (each damaging 0.2 percent houses of the total damaged) further affected
Nepal.
More than seven hundred nine billion rupees worth of economic loss was recorded during the
review period, out of which about 99.5 percent of loss was due to earthquake alone. Fire caused
the second most severe economic loss though it was far less (0.3 percent) as compared to that of
the earthquake.
In terms of impacts on environment and resources, the earthquake triggered at least 2,780 landslides
and many ground cracks in 31 districts, significantly damaging settlements, infrastructures,
agricultural lands, forests and water resources. Satellite imagery identified that the frequency of
landslides was three times greater than before the earthquake. A large avalanche in Langtang
valley destroyed the popular trekking destination of Langtang village and flattened the nearby forest
completely.
Macroeconomic impact assessment conducted by NPC as part of the PDNA reveals that the “total
damage to existing stock of assets has been estimated at over NRs. 500 billion, with economic
losses that flow from this destruction, estimated at nearly NRs. 200 billion – taken together both
figures represent an economic force equivalent to about one third of Nepal’s GDP and well over
100 percent of the Gross Fixed Capital Formation” (NPC 2015b, p. 76). The report concludes that
“the earthquake upset the nation’s high aspirations for swifter economic progress in the short run”
xiv The Road to Sendai
shaking the national hope the country graduating from its current status as a Least Developed
Country (LDC) to a developing country, possibly by 2022.
Experiences from the Relief Operations. Relief operations started from the second hour of the
earthquake in 2015 and lasted till 19 May 2015. Government of Nepal remained quick and swift
during the initial phase of search, rescue and relief response. The first meeting of the Central
Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC) took place at NEOC within the first two hours of the tremor,
and the first emergency meeting of the Cabinet took place within the first four hours. These
meetings managed to (a) immediately release NRs. five hundred million at the disposal of the
CNDRC, (b) call for international humanitarian support, and (c) declare emergency in 11 “crisis-hit”
districts (MoHA 2016), among other decisions. Certain institutional and policy frameworks put in
place earlier enabled this quick initial response. Predefined roles and responsibilities of the NEOC
and other institutions for taking time-bound actions, as outlined in the National Disaster Response
Framework (NDRF), 2013 was extremely helpful in managing disaster response.
However, sudden and immediate breakdown of communication and information networks impacted
the pace of response as restoring them took time. On the fifth day of the earthquake, the Government
made a number of decisions about relief provisions. Families who had lost immediate family
members, or whose houses had collapsed or were completely damaged, were to get immediate
relief in cash. However, there were troubles in identification of actual needs for relief materials
and services and in managing the supplies. To address this mismatch between the actual relief
materials needed on ground and the volume of supply from donations, the CNDRC on 30 April 2015
instructed the government secretaries to ascertain the list of relief items based on actual need, for
endorsement by CNDRC.
In the later stages of the relief response, CNDRC was found to be less effective in resolving
issues of coordination and monitoring of relief operations. Existence of numerous actors required
one streamlined channel for relief response. However, the existence of two parallel systems for
coordination and monitoring, one through government channels and one outside of the government
channels created great confusions.
Experiences from the Ongoing Recovery and Reconstruction. From 19 May 2015, the
Government of Nepal took firm steps towards transitioning from relief phase to recovery phase.
Following the enactment of the NRA Act on 20 December, the National Reconstruction Authority
(NRA) was constituted on 25 December 2015 with a mandate to manage, oversee and coordinate
recovery and reconstruction work in the earthquake affected districts. In May 2016, the NRA
brought the Post Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF) to provide strategic guidance on carrying
The Road to Sendai
xv
out recovery and reconstruction activities in an integrated manner with sectoral priorities identified
and sequenced and availability of resources earmarked for actual recovery and reconstruction
work.
Despite the fact that reconstruction of private houses has been one of NRA’s top priorities,
reconstruction of private houses has not yet gathered momentum in two years after the devastating
earthquake that destroyed over 765,000 houses. As of August 2017, a total of 632,047 beneficiaries
had signed the grant agreement and 603,072 of them had collected the first tranche; however only
56,687 beneficiaries have received the second. There is no clear record of how many houses have
actually been completed so far.
A study conducted by NRA to identify vulnerable settlements after the 2015 earthquake,
recommended that a total of 2,751 families of 112 communities have to be relocated to safer places
(NRA, 2017b). NRA has enforced a new procedure for safer relocation of the families of the hazard-
prone settlements that have been affected by the earthquake and has started the rehabilitation
process by buying land in safer locations for them. Similarly, policy and process of establishing
integrated settlement has been prepared.
Post-2015 DRM Regulatory Framework in Nepal. Nepal’s Constitution, for the first time, mentions
the DRM under Article 51 and Schedules 5 to 9, and has clearly assigned DRM as a concurrent
responsibility of the three tiers of government, particularly of the local governments. Article 51
stipulates the policies that the state shall pursue with regard to DRM. For instance, the sub-article
G that relates to “policies concerning protection, promotion and use of natural resources,” does
mention that the state shall formulate policies related to development of sustainable and reliable
irrigation through prevention of water-induced disasters and river management.
On 24 September 2017, the legislative-parliament unanimously passed a new Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Act, 2017. In many respects, the Act is considered more progressive
and comprehensive than the existing Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982 since it also recognizes risk
reduction as an important and integral part of risk management. The Act proposes a clear multi-
tier institutional structure of disaster risk reduction and management at the center, the provinces,
the districts and the local levels. It further fosters the principles of risk-informed development and
sociologically comprehensive approach for managing disasters.
The government of Nepal is recently developing the National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy and
the Strategic Action Plan aligned with SFDRR, one that will replace the NSDRM, 2009. The new
NDRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan will serve as a road map to guide the future course of action
for DRM in Nepal till 2030. There is hope that these two policy documents will serve as a turning
point for Nepal to be a disaster resilient nation.
xvi The Road to Sendai
Carving the Road to SFDRR. The Sendai Framework of DRR (SFDRR) aims at substantially
reducing disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical,
social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries by
2030. The framework has set seven targets and several indicators to measure progress against
these targets. The seven targets aim at contributing in reducing (a) mortality, (b) number of affected
people, (c) economic losses, and (d) damage to critical infrastructure and in increasing (e) the
number of national and local DRR strategies, (f) level of international cooperation, and (g) availability
of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information.
Nepal’s disaster management actions between 2010 and 2015 were guided by the five priority
actions identified under Hyogo Framework for Actions (HFA), which were further elaborated in
Nepal’s NSDRM, 2009. Nepal’s performance in translating HFA’s commitments into reality achieved
mixed success (MoHA 2015, UNDP Nepal 2015). The progress and achievements made by Nepal
against the HFA priority actions also remained uneven – as evidenced in national progress reports
submitted to UNISDR. The final report submitted to the UNISDR, entitled “National Progress Report
on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action” (MoHA 2015) and an independent
assessment of DRM integration into development plans (UNDP Nepal 2015) show ample scope
for improvement in future course of actions. The agenda of strengthening policy and institutional
framework for DRM remained unattained during the HFA period. The much-awaited new DRRM Act
could not materialize during the period.
With regard to progress on empowering local communities for disaster risk management and
institutionalizing resilience building at local levels, MoFALD, with support from NRRC, introduced
criteria-based community resilience system based on standardized approaches, which guided the
process of capacity building of the local communities. Using this approach, over 635 VDCs and
municipalities were considered for building risk-resilience. At the municipal level, 58 municipalities
have developed capacities to respond to fire disaster and were equipped with fire brigades.
To enhance national capacities to prepare and respond to disasters, MoHA, with the support of
UNDP, established NEOC in Kathmandu and expanded the network of EOCs in 5 regions, 49
districts and 1 municipality. All the EOCs are equipped with emergency communication systems
and maintain a tailor made Disaster Management Information System through SAHANA, a web
based platform for collecting data on disaster loss and damage and provide support for disaster
preparedness and response during emergencies.
The National DRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan for Nepal (2017-2030), currently being finalized
by MoHA, is an important step towards fulfilling Nepal’s commitments to SFDRR. The national
DRR policy ensures long-term commitment of the Government towards DRR, and the Action Plan
The Road to Sendai
xvii
translates SFDRR priorities and targets into national contexts towards making Nepal a safer and
resilient country.
The new constitution of Nepal (2015) envisions the local governments taking responsibility of DRM
supported by provincial and federal governments. However, to be able to take this responsibility,
the newly formed local government will require trained human resources, adequate finances and
enhanced institutional capacities.
The official records of the Government show that CNDRF released a little more than NRs. twenty-
one billion, nine hundred ninety million (NRs. 21,990,192,958) towards disaster relief and response
activities in the period of 2015-2017 along with the expenditure of the Government line agencies
in both years of a little over NRs. eighty-five billion, eight hundred forty-nine million, most of which
was spent by NRA alone. From the non-government sector, little more than one hundred twenty
one million USD was mobilized during the review period by the reporting UN agencies, while Nepal
Red Cross Society (NRCS) and five I/NGOs was able to raise and spend a over NRs. two billion,
four hundred sixty-eight million and one billion two hundred eighty one million repectively during
the reporting period.
Apart from SFDRR, Nepal has shown strong commitment towards the implementation of SDGs,
the Paris agreement on climate change and other regional and global frameworks for making
development risk-informed. To translate these commitments into actual actions, Nepal’s planning
and budgeting systems, from federal to local government and across the sectors, need to focus on
institutionalizing integrated development and risk reduction approaches.
Key Priority Issues for the Next Few Years
The NDR 2017 identifies a number of priority action areas that could be considered for the next few
years or so. They are:
1. Creating an effective institutional set up as provisioned under the new Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Act, 2017.
2. Capacity building at all levels of the government for disaster risk reduction, preparedness, and
response and recovery..
3. Instituting a practice of risk-informed development and mainstreaming DRR and CCA into
sectoral development planning.
4. Ensuring allocation of adequate funding for DRR and CCA at all levels.
xviii The Road to Sendai
5. Empowering province and local governments for effective leadership role in disaster risk
reduction and management.
6. Setting up an effective Disaster Information Management System (DIMS) at the central and
province levels as a one-stop information hub.
7. Ensuring Gender Responsive Disaster Risk Reduction and Management.
8. Strengthening national capacity of SAR to the level of INSARAG standards

The Road to Sendai
xxvii
Table of Contents
Editorial............................................................................................................................................ xi
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................xii
Chapter 1 : Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
NDR 2017: Purpose and Process.................................................................................................... 2
Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 3
Key Messages from the Earlier NDRs.............................................................................................. 3
Learning from HFA and the Thrust of the SFDRR............................................................................ 4
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 : Periodic Review of Disaster Statistics................................................... 7

Disaster Information Management in Nepal .................................................................................... 7
Institutions Involved in DIMS ........................................................................................................... 9
Key Hazards .................................................................................................................................. 11
Expenditure on Disaster Risk Management by Select Agencies.................................................... 15
Assessing Environmental Impacts of Disasters.............................................................................. 18
Why is Safeguarding Development Gains So Important?.............................................................. 20
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3 : The 2015 Earthquake and the Lessons Learned................................ 23

The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake........................................................................................................ 23
Experiences from the Relief Operation........................................................................................... 24
Lessons Learnt............................................................................................................................... 27
Experiences from the Ongoing Recovery and Reconstruction....................................................... 28
Youth Volunteerism and Building Temporary Class Rooms in Kaski.............................................. 32
Key Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................... 33
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 35
xxviii The Road to Sendai
Chapter 4 : The Post-2015 DRM Regulatory Framework in Nepal ...................... 36

The Constitution of Nepal, 2015..................................................................................................... 36
The new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017..................................................... 37
Other DRM Regulatory Frameworks.............................................................................................. 38
Existing DRM Institutions and Mandates:....................................................................................... 40
DRM Priorities under Current 14th Development Plan.................................................................... 42
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 5 : From HFA to SFDRR: Carving the Road Ahead...................................... 43

Nepal’s Response to Yokohama Strategy...................................................................................... 43
HFA (2005-2015) Achievements..................................................................................................... 43
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction............................................................................. 46
Other International Frameworks and Commitments....................................................................... 49
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 54
Chapter 6 : Key Challenges and Priorities Ahead................................................... 55

Enabling Environment.................................................................................................................... 55
Anticipated Challenges................................................................................................................... 55
Key Priority Actions Ahead............................................................................................................. 56
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 58
References.................................................................................................................................... 59
Annexes
Annex 1: Multi-hazard scenario of Nepal by its socio-economic loss, 1971-2016.......................... 64
Annex 2: Disbursement of Amount from Central Natural Disaster Relief Fund, 2015 and 2016.... 64
Annex 3: Expenditure by Government Departments in DRM, 20015 and 2016 ............................ 65
Annex 4: Contribution by UN agencies on DRM Activities, 2015 and 2016................................... 65
Annex 5: Contribution of INGOs in DRM, 2015 and 2016.............................................................. 66
Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................................... 67

The Road to Sendai
xxix
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Assessing Nepal’s progress on HFA................................................................................5
Table 2.1: Aggregate disaster data (2015 and 2016) by human loss and injuries..........................12
Table 2.2: Aggregate disaster data on economic and financial loss (2015 and 2016)....................13
Table 4.1: Constitutional provisions on DRM responsibility............................................................37
Table 5.1: Disaster risk, climate change risk and resilience issues embraced by SDGs................52
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Screenshot view of Nepal government Geo-Portal........................................................ 7
Figure 2.2: Screenshot view of Sahana software used by NEOC.................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Longitudinal pattern of economic costs of water-induced disasters in Nepal,
1983-2010 ................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.1: Ratio of beneficiaries receiving house reconstruction grants in 14 crisis-hit districts... 30
List of Boxes
Box 2.1: Key hazards of the years.................................................................................................. 11

Box 2.2: The 2017 Monsoon flood.................................................................................................. 15
Box 2.3: Principles of making recovery and reconstruction environment sensitive........................ 20
Box 3.1: Volunteerism..................................................................................................................... 32
Box 3.2: Reconstruction related policy and legal frameworks........................................................ 34
Box 5.1: Nepal’s key policy response to HFA................................................................................. 44
Box 5.2 : Key milestones of the AMCDRR roadmap by 2018........................................................ 49
Box 5.3: The pre-2020 action of the Paris Agreement.................................................................... 50
.
The Road to Sendai
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Globally, Nepal ranks 4th and 11th in terms of its relative vulnerability to climate change and
earthquakes, respectively (Maplecroft 2011, BCPR 2004 cited in MoHA 2015). In part, this is
because Nepal is in a seismically active zone with a high probability for a massive earthquake. The
country is among the 20 most disaster-prone countries in the world, both natural and man induced.
Out of 21 cities around the world that lie in similar seismic hazard zones, Kathmandu city is at the
highest risk in terms of impact on people. More than 80 percent of the total population of Nepal is
at risk of natural hazards such as floods, landslides, windstorms, hailstorms, fires, earthquakes and
Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs).
Nepal, as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, is invariably exposed to water-
induced disasters and hydro-meteorological extreme events such as droughts, storms, floods,
inundation, landslides, debris flow, soil erosion and avalanches. The MoSTE identifies that current
climate variability and extreme events have led to major impacts and economic costs in Nepal,
emanating not only from floods and landslides but also from rainfall variability on agriculture (rain-
fed agriculture, soil erosion, droughts) and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) (MoSTE 2014).
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) together with the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development (MoFALD) and the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) has been playing a key
role in disaster preparedness and response and reducing disaster risks in coordination with different
development partners. The MoHA has been producing biennial disaster reports (Nepal Disaster
Report - NDR) since 2009 with support from development partners such as UNDP, DPNet-Nepal,
NRCS and others. The published series of NDRs includes NDR 2009, NDR 2011, NDR 2013 and
NDR 2015. The publication of NDR 2017 has been a joint endeavor of MoHA, UNDP and DPNet-
Nepal with support from other development partners.
2 The Road to Sendai
NDR 2017: Purpose and Process
The main purpose of NDR 2017 is to highlight Nepal’s past experiences in DRM, documenting
key learning and challenges in the course of managing disaster risk and identifying future priority
actions for effective disaster response, risk reduction and recovery. This would in turn, inform the
different stakeholders, policy makers, researchers and citizens of the country about the gravity of
the problem and the need for a disaster aware paradigm of development.
The process of preparing the NDR 2017 includes:
• Reviewing the past NDRs (NDR 2009, NDR 2011, NDR 2013 and NDR 2015) to explore areas
for improvement in terms of its quality and contents;
• Documenting the major disaster events that occurred during last two years (2015 and 2016)
and the current disaster context of Nepal;
• Presenting given policy, legal and institutional set ups for managing disaster risks including the
new DRM Act and the draft National DRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan;
• Consolidating experiences, challenges and lesson learned in managing disaster risks, and
institutional efforts on recovery and reconstruction; and
• Understanding loss and damage caused by disasters.
With the technical support of UNDP, preparation of NDR 2017 followed a participatory process under
the overall guidance of MoHA through its Disaster Management Division (DMD). UNDP, through
its Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Programme (CDRMP), further supported data
collection, field verifications and analysis. An editorial board led by the MoHA with representatives
from UNDP and DPNet-Nepal provided guidance on overall content and structure of the report. A
two-person expert team hired by UNDP was tasked for collecting and validating data from various
sources and for writing the report. DPNet-Nepal provided coordination and secretarial support to
the expert team in organizing meetings and data analysis.
The draft NDR 2017 was widely circulated among the stakeholders in September 2017 and
feedbacks were incorporated into the final report, which was shared with all the stakeholders in a
national workshop in December 2017 organized by MoHA.
The Road to Sendai
3
Methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches based on social-science research methodology were
used for data collection. Key documents and reports (published and unpublished) on DRR and CCA
were obtained from relevant ministries and departments, key development partners and academic
institutions. This was complemented by open access online documents retrieved mostly from the
worldwide web.
Desk review. The initial segment of work involved desk review of the available documents and
reports that included legal and policy frameworks, guidelines, SOPs, progress reports, and docu-
ments on HFA, SFDRR, and other global instruments. The past NDRs and lessons learnt from 2015
earthquake and sectoral plans were also reviewed.
Key Informant Interview (KII). In order to identify the key challenges and future priorities related
to DRR, a few key informants were specifically interviewed. Select officials of MoHA, UNDP Nepal,
DPNet-Nepal, and Association of International NGOs in Nepal (AIN) were also interviewed to know
about the progress made during HFA, areas for future improvement and challenges in achieving
SFDRR targets.
Field Visit. The expert team accompanied by the officials of MoHA and the Editorial Board visited
Kaski district to enquire about the on-going DRM initiatives and learn about mobilization of volun-
teers in the immediate aftermath of 2015 earthquake for response and early recovery.
Key Messages from the Earlier NDRs
Since the first Nepal Disaster Report (NDR), published in 2009, the MoHA, in close partnership
with the development partners, has been publishing NDRs every two years. The NDRs serve as
an important tool of communication for the general public on various aspects of disaster risk man-
agement and to update information on lives lost, houses damaged, people missing and injured by
different disasters. Main points of the last four NDRs are summarized below:
Nepal Disaster Report 2009: The Hazards and Vulnerability. Being the first national disaster re-
port of Nepal, the NDR 2009 tried to highlight Nepal’s exposure to multi-hazards and vulnerabilities
faced by its population. The main purpose of the report was to raise awareness among policy mak-
ers, practitioners, researchers, students and others towards understanding disasters and taking
timely actions to reduce disaster risks.
Nepal Disaster Report 2011: Policies, Practices and Lessons. The NDR 2011 made an attempt
to compile the data on occurrences of disaster events and disaster risk management efforts of the
government and non-government partners including the communities. In addition, the NDR 2011
looked into how the country was exposed to multi-hazard risks, the cost of not responding to them
and inter-related challenges in implementation.
Nepal Disaster Report 2013: Participation and Inclusion. The focus of the NDR 2013 was on the
issue of ‘participation’ and ‘inclusion’ in disaster risk management. In addition to periodic updates on
past disasters and likely future disaster risks, it drew examples of inclusive and participatory DRM
practices backed by policy, legal and regulatory provisions and captured successful examples of
Early Warning System, community based DRM, warehouse and stockpiling facilities, mainstream-
ing DRR into development, volunteerism and application of indigenous knowledge into DRM.
Nepal Disaster Report 2015. The NDR 2015 mostly covered the 2015 Earthquake and compiled
findings of study reports on mass casualty management, trends of Nepal’s disaster management
policy, impact of Hudhud Cyclone in Himalayan region of Nepal and Seti flash flood. As in the ear-
lier reports, it also presented updated disaster statistics and trends of disaster events during the
reporting period.
The NDR 2017 differs from the earlier NDRs in several aspects. It not only captures disaster sta-
tistics and trends, but more importantly it reviews the achievements made by Nepal during the
period of HFA implementation (2005-2015), analyzes recent policy and regulatory environment and
effectiveness of disaster risk management and preparedness in view of current and future risks,
and recommends steps for achieving SFDRR targets (2016-2030).
Learning from HFA and the Thrust of the SFDRR
Nepal’s HFA report for 2013 to 2015 (Table 1.1) places the aggregated average achievement
percent in all five priority actions areas at 57 percent of the target. This clearly indicates that Nepal
has accomplished foundational work in the field of DRR, but there is still a long journey ahead to
make Nepal a disaster resilient country. Both the 2013-2015 HFA bi-annual progress report and
the ten-year HFA evaluation report (2005-2015) clearly indicate major challenges in successfully
achieving the HFA priority action. The most common challenges identified are: lack of pragmatic
DRM Act, relief and response centric DRM activities, a lack of dedicated high level DRM institutions,
weak implementation of activities, poor monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, inadequate trained
human resources at all levels, ineffective information management system, etc., among others.
Despite several efforts made in the past to strengthen gender mainstreaming into DRM and make
The Road to Sendai
5
DRM approaches inclusive1 to all, actual success on the ground was limited until recently.
Table 1.1: Assessing Nepal’s progress on HFA

Priority for Action Level of Progress
(scale: 1-5)
Ensure that DRR is a national and local priority with a strong institutional 3.00
basis for implementation
Identify, assess and monitor disaster risk and enhance early warning 2.50
Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and
resilience at all levels 3.00
Reducing the underlying risk factors 2.50
Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels 3.25
Aggregated average level of progress 2.85
Source: HFA Progress Report (MoHA 2015)
With an understanding of the main challenges that the country faced during the HFA period
(2005-2015), a successful implementation of SFDRR (2015-2030) is admittedly not an easy task.
These two reports and many other documents had consistently identified the need for a new and
comprehensive DRRM Act and a dedicated DRM institution important for transforming the relief and
response centric disaster management approach towards risk reduction approach by mainstream
DRR into development.
At present, with new comprehensive DRM law in place and a designated DRR institution under
making, one can say that Nepal has built necessary foundations to work towards SFDRR2 priorities.
However, effective implementation of the new DRRM Act in the context of federalization and state
restructuring and existing capacity gaps in priority setting and implementation of provincial and
local governments, are seen as major challenges.
1 The National Women’s Conference on Gender Responsive Disaster Management held in Kathmandu (March 2016) called upon the
Government to adopt gender, age, disability and culture in all policies and practices and promote women and youth leadership, and new
provisions to strengthen the role of women and girls for community’s disaster resilience, gender equality and women’s empowerment
(Women Group Working on Common Charter of Demand on Humanitarian Response (2016) in accordance with the “Sendai Framework,”.
It calls for NRA to draft and implement necessary policy and plans to ensure gender proportionate and inclusive participation (50:50) for
gender responsive disaster management in the context of post-earthquake reconstruction. It further calls for developing “humanitarian
assistance national standard” by the government in order to implement disaster response programme by fully guaranteeing people of all
age, gender, class, ethnicity, indigenous nationalities, religion the basic and special rights of women of all kinds of physical, mental and
marital status, in order to address the existing gender inequality.
2 The four priority areas of SFDRR are: a) understanding disaster risk, b) strengthening disaster risk governance to manage risk, c)
invest in disaster risk reduction, and d) enhance disaster preparedness for effective response and build back better.
Budget constraints to prioritize DRR actions over mainstream development activities is yet another
hurdle in realizing SFDRR priorities. Sectoral allocation for DRM is still very marginal compared
to the actual needs. Aabout five percent of the total capital expenditure of the government being
currently spent in DRM (UNDP Nepal 2015) is insufficient given the scale of disasters in the country.
Summary
This chapter reviews the earlier National Disaster Reports (NDRs) produced by the MoHA biennially,
and specifically the NDR 2017, which highlights Nepal’s experiences in DRM over the last two
years including the learning from post 2015 Earthquake response and challenges in the course of
managing disaster risks during Hyogo period. The NDR 2017 further identifies future priorities for
risk reduction and making disaster response and recovery effective and lays out the methodology
for the same.
The Road to Sendai
7
Chapter 2
Periodic Review of Disaster
Statistics
Disaster Information Management in Nepal
A comprehensive disaster information management system (DIMS) in Nepal is still under

development. Various systems for collecting disaster data exist but they mostly operate in isolation
and are not linked to any one common national system, which is still under making. Disaster
data are mostly used during disasters to report on loss and damage and facilitate post disaster
response. The government owned SAHANA System and DRR Portal are weak in making forecasts
and generating early warnings.
The World Bank has supported geo-spatial data management system, which is a web-based
application using GIS platform and deploys spatial data infrastructure. Disaster data are first
recorded in Excel format, then geo-referenced using QGIS software before being uploaded into
Geo Node system. Nepal Geo-portal (Figure 2.1) has been set up for this purpose, which displays
Nepal’s hazards and vulnerability. The system is robust enough to create customized maps as per
the need and printing them. Technically the system is maintained by the WB and operates outside
the government system.
Figure 2.1: Screenshot view of Nepal government Geo-Portal

National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC) under MoHA supported by UNDP manages
Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal (DRR Portal) and SAHANA System for disaster Information
management (Figure 2.2). SAHANA is an open source web-based disaster information management
platform, which allows customized data collection for disaster occurrence, loss and damage and
emergency supplies. The first version of SAHANA was created in Sri Lanka to help coordinate the
response to the 2004 Tsunami. Functional effectiveness of SAHANA System is constrained by
poor flow of information from DEOCs to NEOC through this System. Due to lack of trained human
capacity, reliable internet connectivity and back-up power supply at DEOCs, they mostly collect
disaster data in spreadsheets and manually communicate to NEOC for feeding into DRR Portal.
Figure 2.2 Screenshot view of Sahana software used by NEOC
The Nepal disaster data has been made publicly available at www.desinventar.net1, where a
systematic database of natural disasters that have occurred in Nepal for a period of 42 years (1971
January to December 2013) has been prepared and made available and which also allows analysis
of the data and trends. Currently, the historical data is available up until 2013. The effort was
focused mainly on collection, computer-entry, and analysis of natural disaster data. A standard data
collection format was developed and used to capture the data from different sources and entered
into the "DesInventar” System. The objective of establishing the DesInventar database was to
institutionalize the Disaster Inventory/Information Management System in Nepal at a national level.
1 Raw data from 1971 onwards is also available directly from NSET offices.
The Road to Sendai
9
The data collection and analysis were continued and updated in the database system on an annual
basis till 2013. The database includes: event, region, district, village, Date, Cause, Description
of Cause, Source, Magnitude, Deaths, Injured, Missing, Houses Destroyed, Houses Damaged,
Victims, Affected, Relocated, Evacuated, Losses ($USD), Losses ($Local), Damages at crops in
hectare, Lost Cattle and Damages of roads (Mts). The data is mostly collected from newspapers
namely Gorakhapatra, demonstrated to be a reliable source - or other reputed newspapers, the
Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), and special bulletins2. The DesInventar
largely covers earthquake, floods, landslides, drought, and epidemics events, and at all scales of
disaster impact. From 2010 MoHA started collecting and archiving similar data and information of
disaster incidents occurring across the country into its website: drrportal.gov.np.
Institutions Involved in DIMS
A great potential exists for transforming Nepal DRR portal into an integrated and comprehensive
DIMS to make reliable disaster forecasts, generate “end-to-end” and “people-centered” early
warning3 and support resilient development planning. A comprehensive DIMS requires linking hazard
information and disaster data with hydro meteorological data juxtaposed with socio-economic,
physiographic, population and poverty data obtained from satellite imagery, census data and land-
use and topographic maps. A pre-requisite towards establishing a robust and functional DIMS, is
for various line agencies of the government that are engaged in managing disaster information, as
given below, to work together and share information through a common platform.
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) is the principal government agency to

collect and analyze meteorological and hydrology data and disseminate information on water
discharge, weather forecasts and early warnings. Their information is very useful for sectoral
ministries, particularly in the planning and management of water resources, agriculture, energy,
mountaineering, civil aviation and disaster mitigation. It has established flood monitoring and early
warning systems in major rivers in Nepal, which has been very effective in saving lives during
monsoon floods.
2 Pilot projects have also been conducted in several districts, in which locally-collected data is directly input into the DesInventar
system. However, it is recognized that significantly more resources are required to implement this modality of data collection, than
national-level data collection.
3 Effective “end-to-end” and “people-centered” early warning systems may include four interrelated key elements: (a) disaster risk
knowledge based on the systematic collection of data and disaster risk assessments; (b) detection, monitoring, analysis and forecasting
of the hazards and possible consequences; (c) dissemination and communication, by an official source, of authoritative, timely, accurate
and actionable warnings and associated information on likelihood and impact; and (d) preparedness at all levels to respond to the
warnings received. These four interrelated components need to be coordinated within and across sectors and multiple levels for the
system to work effectively and to include a feedback mechanism for continuous improvement. Failure in one component or a lack of
coordination across them could lead to the failure of the whole system (UNISDR 2017).
Department of Water Induced Disaster Management (DWIDM) collects data on water induced
disasters, mainly floods, at river basin level and prepares water-induced disaster management
plans, hazard and risk maps, and applies environment-friendly mitigation measures in the
downstream areas to help minimize human casualties and damage of infrastructure.
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM) collects information

on hazard, risks and vulnerability at watershed level mainly to control the damage caused by
sediment landslides, debris flow and soil erosion, and maintain ecological balance of the watersheds
to enhance soil productivity.
Department of Mines and Geology (DMG) operates the National Seismological Centre, which
collects seismological data throughout the country through a network of 21 seismic stations and 7
accelerometers. It uses micro-seismic monitoring tool that allows seismic surveillance to support
post-earthquake rescue operation.
Department of Health Services (DHS) manages and maintains Health Management Information
System to support post disaster emergency response through control of epidemic outbreak. Under
GIS based health facility mapping initiative, it operates Health Emergency Operation Centre
(HEOC), equipped with necessary resources and information, to serve round-the-clock during
health emergencies.
Department of Survey (DoS) is the primary government agency responsible for doing geodetic,
gravity and other surveys throughout the country. It produces topographic base maps and carries
out cadastral survey, maintains multi-resolution geo database and produces information on land-
use pattern and land-use maps.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is the central agency under National Planning Commission of
Nepal responsible for collection, consolidation, processing, analysis, publication and dissemination
of socio-economic statistics and other information of the entire country based on census data and
surveys. It compiles and archives data on population, agriculture, forest, environment, poverty, labor,
and others on regular intervals, which are useful for comparison and analysis to help understand
the trends and changes over time.
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), a regional inter-

governmental agency serving eight member countries of the Hindu Kush Himalayas including Nepal,
has supported the development of forest fire detection and monitoring system based on Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) data. The system carries out automated data
acquisition, processing, and reporting on fire location at 1x1 km resolution.
The Road to Sendai
11
Key Hazards
The MoHA disaster data archives maintain loss and damage data for a total of 16 kinds of
active disasters in Nepal. These disasters in alphabetic order are, asinapani (heavy rainfall with
hailstones), avalanche, boat capsize, cold wave, drowning, earthquake, epidemic, fire, flood, heavy
rainfall, high altitude, landslide, lightning, snow storm, wind storm, excluding the “other” category.
This illustrates Nepal’s exposure to multiple hazard risks (Annex 1 for loss and damage data due
to multi-hazards between 1971 and 2016). Thirteen different types of disaster have been recorded
during the past two years.
The 2010 Nepal Hazard Risk Assessment (ADPC, NGI and CECI 2010) identifies 13 of Nepal’s 75
districts exposed to 4 types of hazards at a time, while other 3 districts are exposed to as many as
5 types of hazards. The remaining 59 districts are categorized as those exposed to three types of
hazards at a time.
An assessment of three categories of national Box 2.1: Key hazards of the years
level disaster data on loss in 2015-16 (human, Overall Review years
casualties, financial loss and the number of (1971-2016) (2015 and 2016)
families affected) reveals that earthquake, fire,
Earthquake Earthquake
flood, landslide and lightning are the top five Epidemic Fire
deadly disasters in Nepal in the order of intensity Fire Flood
and impact (Box 2.1). Flood Landslide
Landslide Lightening
As Table 2.1 displays, a total of 2,940 events of
disaster have been recorded in the review period,
of which incidents of fire (N=1,856) outnumber the others. Incidents of fire are followed by lightning
(N=299), landslide (N=290), flood (N=244) and heavy rainfall (N=118). Other disasters also took
place but they were less in frequency (by two digits or even less).
Table 2.1: Aggregate disaster data (2015 and 2016) by human loss and injuries
Number of Human loss
Types of disaster
events Death Missing Injured
Boat capsize 4 7 1 8
Earthquake (local magnitude 4>) 35* 8,970** 195 22,302
Epidemic 5 20 0 35
Fire 1,856 104 0 278
Flood 244 101 39 23
Landslide 290 276 42 226
Heavy rainfall 118 9 0 24
Wind storm 43 2 0 9
Lightning 299 185 0 369
Asinapani 16 0 0 0
Drowning 5 5 3 0
High altitude 10 13 0 0
Other 15 6 1 43
Total 2,940 9,698*** 281 23,317
Source: MoHA 2017
Note:
* Source: National Seismological Centre, as reconfirmed by NEOC on 20 September 2017.
**Source: MoHA 2016, p. 58.
*** There is discrepancy in the available data. The actual total number of death during 2015 and 2016 is
reported to be 9,708 elsewhere.
Human Casualties. Of these killer hazards, earthquake stands out from the rest in all respects
– death, disappearance and injuries, a fact reiterated by the 2015 Earthquake. Of the total 9,708
disaster-related human deaths during those two years the 2015 earthquake alone claimed the lives
of 8,970 persons (92.5 percent). Landslide, lightning, fire and flood claimed the second highest
number of lives (in a range between 276 and 101 each) during 2015 and 2016.
Earthquake also appears to top the list of disasters leading to the largest number of missing
persons. Of the total number of missing persons (N=281) in those two years, 195 (69.4 percent)
went missing due to earthquake alone. People also went missing during floods and landslides, but
were far less in number. A total of 22,302 persons sustained injuries in 2015 due to earthquake
alone. This is 95.6 percent of the total persons injured (N=23,317) during the review period. Injuries
caused by other hazards are far less.
An increasing number of deaths and injuries seem to also be resulting from lightning: during the
review period, lightning injured a total of 369 persons. Fire and landslide follow lightning in the
extent of injuries sustained (Table 2.1).
The Road to Sendai
13
Socio-Economic Losses. When one looks at the economic and financial losses as a result of
disasters, earthquake clearly leads this list too. This includes houses damaged, economic loss and
number of families affected (Table 2.2). All disasters recorded in MoHA database reveal that a total
of one million, eighty-five thousand, seven hundred and ninety-seven houses were damaged during
the review period, of which 98.7 percent of the houses damaged was due to the earthquake. This
is followed by a host of other disasters attributable to fire and landslide (0.3 percent each) and to
flood, heavy rainfall and windstorm (0.2 percent each) (Table 2.2).
Of the total economic loss that occurred during the review period, worth more than seven hundred
nine billion rupees, about 99.5 percent was due to earthquake alone. Another category of disaster
that caused economic loss was fire. But its effect was far less (0.3 percent) when compared to the
effect of the earthquake.
Unfortunately, the data related to the loss of old heritage sites in the country is very blurred. Even
in the case of 2015 earthquake, the impact to the old temples, monasteries and other historical
infrastructures particularly in the rural areas of the country are almost unavailable. Due to the lack
of proper and regular maintenance of such historical infrastructures in many urban and rural areas,
such heritage sites have been either damaged or have ultimately collapsed.
Several communities have been displaced due to regular exposure to disasters. Such displaced
people have either shifted to other parts of the same districts or to the flat plain of the Tarai in
southern Nepal. Due to displacement to new locations many community groups have lost their
traditional institutions and also the indigenous knowledge and practices, the monetary value of
which is hard to ascertain.
Table 2.2: Aggregate disaster data on economic and financial loss (2015 and 2016)
Economic and financial loss
Number of
Type of disaster Houses Economic loss
events Families affected
damaged (in NRs.)*
Boat capsize 4 0 0 8
Earthquake 70 1,072,093 706,461,000,000 1,072,093
Epidemic 5 0 0 20
Fire 1,856 2,997 2,420,480,490 3,898
Flood 244 2,628 47,296,501 7,141
Landslide 290 2,980 811,084,600 1,936
Heavy rainfall 118 2,486 18,969,500 683
Wind storm 43 2,547 24,186,000 191
Lightning 299 65 5,271,000 415
Drowning 5 0 0 7
High altitude 10 0 0 9
Others 15 1 0 19
Total 2,975 1,085,797 709,788,288,091 1,086,420
Source: MoHA 2017, NPC 2015b.
Note: * Economic loss from the 2015 Earthquake has been added in the table as published in PDNA
report (NPC 2015b).
A total of one million, eighty-six thousand, four hundred and twenty families were affected by one
or more disasters during the review period of which one million, seventy-two thousand and ninety-
three (98.7 percent) families were affected by the earthquake. This is followed by incidences of
flood and fire, affecting 0.7 and 0.4 percent of the total affected families. To conclude, earthquake,
flood and fire are the three disasters that affected a large number of families in Nepal during 2015
and 2016 (Box 2.2).
People left stranded after floods in Rapti River swept a bridge away in Duduwa, Banke.
(Photo credit: Thakur Singh Tharu, The Kathmandu Post, 16 August 2017)
The Road to Sendai
15
Box 2.2: The 2017 Monsoon flood

Beginning 11 August 2017 Nepal experienced its worst rains in 15 years, resulting in large scale impact
on life, livelihood and infrastructure across 35 districts. The districts hit hard by the 2017 flood are
Panchthar, Illam, Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Rautahat,
Bara, Parsa, Chitwan, Makwanpur, Lalitpur, Sindhuli, Nawalparsi, Palpa, Kapilvastu, Dang, Banke,
Bardiya, Kailali, Surkhet, Salyan and Kalikot. The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)
recorded the highest ever mean rainfall of 1,800 mm, substantially exceeding the average of 1,200 mm
in the recent past. This triggered flash floods the across all Tarai districts.
This emergency came at a time when Nepal was already struggling to recover from the 2015 earth-
quake, with much reconstruction and recovery work still to be done. Five of the current flood affected
districts were also the earthquake affected districts, while four of the current flood affected districts
were hit by large scale floods in 2014 also, and were yet to fully recover (UN ORC 2017).
The death toll from floods and landslides across the country during the monsoon reached 134 (NPC
2017c, Table 1). At least 29 people went missing and 22 were injured. According to MoHA, 43,400
houses were destroyed, 191,700 houses were partially damaged and further 20,900 families were
temporarily displaced. According to NPC, as many as 1,688,474 persons were affected by this flood
(NPC 2017c). Around 80 percent of the land, in flood-affected Tarai districts, was inundated.
The Government deployed over 26,000 human resources, including security personnel, for search and
rescue operations. Seven choppers of the Nepal Army and six helicopters of private companies along
with rubber boats and motor boats were mobilized in the flood-hit areas. The government distributed
NRs. 200,000 each to the next of kin of those deceased by the flood and NRs. 10,000 to each to
families whose house had been destroyed. On 23 October 2017, the Cabinet decided to form a Flood
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project and placed it under the NRA.
Expenditure on Disaster Risk Management by Select Agencies
Recognizing that budgetary allocations plays a critical role for successful DRM efforts, effort has
been made for the first time to compile DRM related budgetary allocations and expenditures by the
sectors including from the non-government organizations. As the Government does not yet have a
separate budget code on DRM, it remained a daunting task to ascertain actual expenditure made
by the government. In the absence of a coherent reporting mechanism from non-government and
semi-government organizations to a national system, getting data on DRM budget allocation and
expenditures from the INGOs, the academic institutions and private sector was equally challenging.
Although complete information on budget released and expenditure made in DRM in Nepal for
the period under review could not be obtained, an attempt was made to compile the available
information.
Over a period of two years (2015 -2016), the official records of the Government show that, little more
than NRs. twenty-one billion, nine hundred ninety million (NRs. 21,990,192,958) was released on
disaster relief and response activities from the Central Natural Disaster Relief Fund (CNDRF). While
56.6 percent of this was released in 2015, the rest was released in 2016, which is attributable to
the incident of 2015 mega earthquake. It is interesting, however, to note that about 91 percent (little
more than nineteen billion, nine hundred ninety-five million rupees) of the total amount released in
those two years was channeled to DDRCs, followed by line ministries and security forces (getting
8.3 percent of the total amount released). Share of the cost released for the use of helicopters for
rescue and relief operations remained less than one percent (little more than one hundred fifty-nine
million rupees) (Annex 2).
It is evident that the total amount released from the CNDRF during those two years was mainly
on relief and response. It is to be noted that Government fund for disaster preparedness and
mitigation is channeled mostly through government line agencies, such as Water and Energy
Commission, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development, Ministry of Irrigation, Ministry of
Education, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Science
and Technology and Environment, Ministry of Health and Population, Ministry of Industries, Ministry
of Agriculture Development, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Urban Development and other
institutions.
Attempt was also made to get the DRM expenditure of the select ministries and departments. The
NEOC sent requests to seven Ministries and Departments, of which, only four Departments and
one Division responded. Annex 3 records the DRM expenditure of four agencies (Departments of
Mines and Geology, Hydrology and Meteorology, and Water-Induced Disaster Management, and
Epidemiology and Diseases Control Division) and the National Reconstruction Authority for the
review period.
The total expenditure of the Government agencies, which reported their budget in both years,
crossed little over NRs. eighty-five billion, eight hundred forty-nine million. While in 2015 the total
expenditure was over NRs. twenty-eight billion, four hundred fifty-three million (or 33.1 percent), it
was over NRs. fifty-seven billion, three hundred ninety-five million (or 66.9 percent) in 2016.
It is to be noted that of the total expenditure through government line agencies, about 84.6 percent
was spent by NRA alone (that crosses NRs. seventy-two billion, one hundred sixty-seven million).
This is followed by Department of Water-Induced Disaster Management with second largest
expenditure with NRs. thirteen billion, six hundred twenty-eight million, and the Department of
Mines and Geology having smallest budget of little more than NRs. thirty-three million.
The Road to Sendai
17
An attempt was also made to get data on DRM expenditure from different UN agencies during the
review period. Information from seven UN agencies (namely UNDP, WHO, UNICEF, FAO, IOM,
UNFPA and WFP) was received, with respect to their fund mobilization for the year 2015 and 2016.
As Annex 4 reveals, a total of little more than one hundred twenty one million USD was mobilized
during the review period by the seven UN agencies for DRM. The amount mobilized in both years is
66 percent in 2015 and 34 percent in 2016 respectively. WFP appears to be the largest contributor,
mobilizing over seventy one million, followed by UNDP, which mobilized over eighteen million and
similarly WHO mobilized over seven million. FAO, IOM and UNFPA each contributed between
five to six million. Although it is difficult to say so definitively, UN agencies' area of DRM support
seems more towards preparedness for response and risk reduction than response. In a way this
compensates Government's relatively heavier investment in response.
Additionally, with the support of DPNet-Nepal, attempts were made to compile information from
INGOs receiving direct funding from the donors for implementing DRR activities. Only five INGOs
(ActionAid Nepal, ADRA Nepal, CBM International, World Vision International Nepal and Christian
Aid) shared their expenditure information, which show that together they spent little more than NRs.
one billion, two hundred eighty-one million during the period of two years.
Of the five participating INGOs, ActionAid Nepal is the largest one in terms of size of budget invested
in DRM. It has invested over six hundred seventy-six million rupees in DRM activities in four districts
including the Kathmandu Valley. ADRA Nepal ranks second in terms of budget and works in eight
districts out of Kathmandu Valley with a budget nearly over four hundred forty-three million rupees.
CBM International mobilized a little more than NRs. seventy-eight million, followed by World Vision
International Nepal investing little more than NRs. sixty million. The Christian Aid, which works in
four districts of Nepal, invested nearly NRs. twenty-two million rupees in those two years (Annex 5).
DRM expenditure made by Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) has been estimated to be over NRs.
two billion, four hundred sixty-eight million during the reporting period, which is nearly 66 percent
of the total in INGO category.
The expenditures made by INGOs included support during both pre-disaster and post-disaster
period for addressing specific needs of the most vulnerable and excluded group of people (such
as dignity kits to women and girls, school safety kits to school children, etc.) and promoting income
generation and livelihoods in the areas where government support was lacking.
Assessing Environmental Impacts of Disasters
The Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact in Disasters (Benfield Hazard Research Centre,
University College London and CARE International 2005) and Field Environment Assessment Tool
(FEAT) developed by UN agencies provide a comprehensive description of the rapid environmental
assessment process together with background information on key tasks needed to complete the
assessment. It attempts looking into factors influencing environmental impacts, environmental
threats of disasters, unmet basic needs, and negative environmental consequences. The Post
Disaster Needs Assessment published by National Planning Commission observed that:
Large landslides, mudflows and other large-scale dislocation of hillsides inflicted damage in
forest areas. There was sustained damage to nature tourism infrastructure such as nature trails,
trekking routes and sites in protected areas (PAs). Damage to Renewable Energy Technology
(RET) solutions such as improved cook stoves (ICS) and biogas are paramount as these lead to
improvements in the lives of rural communities and also lead to significant positive environmental
outcomes (e.g. reduced deforestation; reductions in GHG emissions) (NPC 2015b, p. 53).
Immediately after the 2015 Earthquake, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
commissioned a rapid environmental assessment (MoSTE 2015), which reported that the
earthquake had triggered at least 2,780 landslides and many ground cracks in 31 districts,
significantly damaging settlements, infrastructure, agricultural land, forests and water resources.
Based on satellite imagery analysis, it further identified that the frequency of landslides was three
times greater than that before the earthquake. A large avalanche in Langtang valley destroyed the
popular trekking destination of Langtang village and flattened the nearby forest.
The assessment reported that the moraine dams of three glacial lakes had destabilized and changed
the water sources in some areas, with reduced or no flows in some, and new sources starting
to flow in others. Freshwater ecosystems in the Koshi and Gandaki basins, as the assessment
identified, were affected by increased amounts of sediment, and landslides temporarily blocked a
few rivers. Risk of downstream flooding was reported to have increased due to deposition of large
amounts of sediment.
The PDNA estimated that 2.2 percent of forest cover in the affected areas was lost, mainly pine
forest and sub-temperate forest (NPC, 2015b). It will take many years for many sites to stabilize
and for vegetation to be re-established.
The PDNA further revealed that seven protected areas and their management were severely
affected due to the earthquake. Community and government forest governance was disrupted,
The Road to Sendai
19
Landslides and soil erosion after the 2015 earthquake (Source: MoSTE 2014)
which increased the risk of illegal extraction. Some wild animals are known to have been killed
directly by the earthquake (MoSTE 2015). The forest areas in the quake-affected districts are likely
to face human pressure and subsequent deforestation in post-earthquake times, as timber and
other forests resources will be in high demand to rebuild houses.
Loss of water resources due to landslides triggered by the earthquake may have created a critical
problem in some villages adding to the woes of already drying water sources because of climate
change. This problem can be the cause of internal migration in many places. Water shortage has
become more severe as earthquake-affected districts also saw very scanty rainfall in following
monsoon season.
Waste management is yet another dimension of environmental impacts of disasters. A huge amount
of debris was generated from damaged buildings after the 2015 earthquake. Hazardous waste
released into the environment included medical waste that was haphazardly disposed of. Some
toxic chemicals could end up in ground water or rivers; some of which are persistent pollutants.
The MoSTE report also notes that waste generated in emergency camps was not well managed,
and plastic generated during the relief phase was either burned (causing air pollution), or dumped
(that will remain undecomposed). Dead bodies and livestock carcasses also contaminated the
environment. The assessment came up with a set of 11 principles for recovery and reconstruction
(Box 2.3).
Box 2.3: Principles of making recovery and reconstruction environment sensitive

• Ensure land use planning incorporates hazards and disaster risk reduction
• Promote the use of safe and green building materials and reuse of disaster debris
• Develop environmentally responsible solid and hazardous waste management plans
• Ensure strategic road planning and reconstruction
• Promote alternative energy and energy efficiency methods
• Improve water and sanitation and promote integrated watershed management
• Support alternative livelihoods and environmentally responsible agriculture
• Promote reforestation and sustainably sourced timber for reconstruction
• Promote sound environmental practices through schools and other academic institutions
• Promote equity in the recovery and reconstruction process with particular attention to women and
vulnerable or marginalized groups
• Incorporate climate change into recovery and reconstruction
(Source: MoSTE 2015, pp. xii-xiv)
Why is Safeguarding Development Gains So Important?
Natural disasters can hit the economy and can rollback development gains or exacerbate inequality.
The PDNA (NPC 2015b) reports that the destruction caused by 2015 earthquake was widespread,
impacting residential and government buildings, heritage sites, schools and health posts, rural
roads, bridges, water supply systems, agricultural land, trekking routes, hydropower plants and
sports facilities. A macroeconomic impact assessment done under PDNA, reveals that “total
damage to existing stock of assets has been estimated at over NRs. 500 billion, with economic
losses that flow from destruction, estimated at nearly NRs. 200 billion – taken together both figures
represent an economic force equivalent to about one third of Nepal’s GDP” (NPC 2015b, p. 76).
According to the World Bank estimates, the earthquake is likely to push an additional 2.5 to 3.5
percent of the population into poverty in the fiscal year 2015-16 (NPC 2015b, p. xviii). That means,
at least, 700,000 additional people are likely to fall under the poverty line as a direct effect of the
earthquake.
In addition to the economic costs of damage and losses, there is also the cost of reconstruction.
Revising the PDNA estimation of NRs. 669,505 million financial requirement for managing
The Road to Sendai
21
reconstruction works of various sectors, the NRA later estimated it to be NRs. 837,742 million.
Hence, it is very clear that one single disaster can pull the economy down tremendously.
A report published by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) about the
economic impacts of climate change variability, assessed historical information on floods and
landslides. This report shows that the direct economic cost of impacts of water-induced disaster
ranged from US$270 to 360m per year during a 30 year period (1980-2010) which was 1.5 to 2
percent of the GDP at 2013 value (Figure 2.3). It could reach as high as five percent in extreme
years; the indirect cost was as high as 100 percent of the direct impact (MoSTE 2014). There are
also indirect impacts, which arise as a consequence – e.g. business disruption, lost wages and
macro-economic costs – of the effects of major disasters on consumption, inflation and the shift of
resources to relief and reconstruction. As a broad indication, these issues would increase the costs
reported above by 25–100 percent (MoSTE 2014, p. 6).
Figure 2.3: Longitudinal pattern of economic costs of water-induced disasters in Nepal, 1983-2010
(Source: MoSTE 2014, Figure 3)
The PDNA report concludes that “the earthquake upsets the nation’s high aspirations for swifter
economic progress in the short run” shaking the national hope for graduation of the country from its
current status as a Least Developed Country (LDC) to developing country, possibly by 2022 (p. 76).
Summary
This chapter reviews the DIMS in Nepal and reveals inconsistency in collection of disaster data
and inadequacies in using them to generate information for broader use by development sectors.
It also notes that the death toll, loss of public and private property, assets and livelihoods are
increasing over the years due to disasters. The chapter reinforces the need for setting up a robust
and comprehensive DIMS capable of generating information to guide national and sectoral planning
to make development resilient to risks and be able to make effective response to disasters. The
Chapter further highlights how the country faces multiple risks posed by multi-hazards and recurrent
disasters due to faulty development plans, weak monitoring mechanisms, climate change, and poor
environmental management. It further reviews loss and damage by disasters during the report
period and extends information on budgetary allocations and expenditures made by the government
and non-government sectors.
The Road to Sendai
23
Chapter 3
The 2015 Earthquake and the
Lessons Learned
The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake
Nepal suffered a massive loss of lives and property on Saturday, 25 April 2015, when a devastating
earthquake of 7.6 magnitude struck the country. Subsequent aftershocks,1 including one of
magnitude 7.3 near the Chinese border on 12 May, resulted in additional losses of life and property.
The earthquakes shook almost the whole country, and the destruction was extensive, lasting and
widespread, in terms of human casualties, social suffering as well as environmental, infrastructural
and heritage related damages. The earthquake triggered avalanches in the Mount Everest region
and in the Langtang Valley. Villages were flattened and people were made homeless within less
than a minute. Considering the severe level of humanitarian crises, Government of Nepal declared
14 out of 31 badly affected districts as “crisis-hit.”
The Post Disaster Recovery Framework (NRA 2016) prepared by the National Reconstruction
Authority and the Post Disaster Needs Assessment (NPC 2015b) prepared by the National Planning
Commission took stock of the damages and losses and estimated recovery costs together with an
outline of the reconstruction strategy.
As a result of the earthquake, 8,970 people died and more than twenty three thousand people
were injured (MoHA 2016). The PDNA showed that at least 498,852 private houses and 2,656
government buildings were destroyed. Another 256,697 private houses and 3,622 government
buildings were partially damaged. In addition, 19,000 classrooms were destroyed and 11,000
damaged (NPC 2015b).
The earthquake affected manufacturing, production and trade in agriculture as well as tourism
and other areas of the service sector. On the whole, it weakened the national economy with wider
1 According to National Seismological Centre the major two earthquakes were followed by 486 aftershocks with local
magnitude 4 and over until 24 August 2017.
ramifications. It posed a challenge to Nepal’s aspiration of upgrading herself to a developing country

category by 2022, and to its national commitment of poverty reduction (NPC 2016).
According to initial estimates NRs. US$ 6,695 million would be required to reconstruct damaged
properties and infrastructure and to support recovery in affected sectors of the economy (NPC
2015c, Table 3). A revised estimate drawn as part of developing the Post Disaster Recovery
Framework, however, identified US$ 8,377 million needed for reconstruction (NRA 2016, Table 4).
Experiences from the Relief Operation
Relief operations started from the second hour of the earthquake and lasted till 19 May 2015; for a
little less than a month. Key highlights of relief operation are drawn hereunder.
Quick and Swift Initial Response. This has been widely observed that Government of
Nepal’s response was quick and swift during the initial phase of search, rescue and relief
response. The first meeting of the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC)
took place at NEOC within the first two hours of the tremor, and the first emergency
meeting of the Cabinet took place within the first four hours. These meetings managed to
(a) immediately release NRs. five hundred million through CNDRC, (b) call for international
humanitarian support, and (c) declare emergency in 11 “crisis-hit” districts (MoHA, 2016)2,
apart from taking other decisions. Certain institutional and policy frameworks put in place
earlier enabled the government to organise quick initial response. The role of NEOC and the
National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF), 2013 assigning clear and time-bound roles and
responsibilities was extremely helpful in managing initial response.
On the third day of the earthquake, the Government managed additional buses to support movement
of outbound passengers who wished to leave the ravaged Kathmandu and to join their families in
outside districts. In the week that followed, about one hundred thousand people left Kathmandu,
easing the pressures on emergency response to a great extent.
Breakdown and Revival of Communication and Information Networks. For a coordinated

and informed response, smooth functioning of the communication system is essential. Getting
information on loss and damage and disseminating clear instructions are two key actions in this
period. Nepal’s communication infrastructure crumbled immediately owing to the earthquake
both literally and figuratively (EIAS 2016). Mobile networks, landline telephones, means of mass
communication (such as television) were all paralyzed. This had implications on mobilization and
optimum utilization of international responders who entered the country without knowing where
2 Emergency was later imposed on additional three districts after getting detailed report.
The Road to Sendai
25
their assistance was most needed. The Government established toll free call centers (with number
1234) as an alternative way to allow people to convey their messages to the Government, which
received a total of 69,890 calls seeking support. The Government also tried to maintain alternative
ways of information flow of relief and rescue through the Nepal DRR Portal (http://drrportal.gov.np/).
SMS and Twitter facilities were also put in place, which complemented flow of information to
some extent. As means of communication (such as internet) were revived, it added much value.
International communication companies, namely T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, Vodafone, Time Warner
Cables and others, offered free calls from and to Nepal. Payment providers such as Apple, PayPal
and Square Cash waived their fees to ease the donations process. Google and Facebook enabled
useful tools to help search for missing and displaced persons (EIAS 2016). The lesson learned is
that Nepal should invest much in making communication and information systems resilient.
Resource Mobilization during relief Operations. Chapter 2 has already detailed the budget
release and investment made for post-earthquake response and recovery, showing that in a
period of two years a little more than NRs. twenty-one billion, nine hundred ninety million (NRs.
21,990,192,958) was released towards disaster relief and response activities from the Central
Natural Disaster Relief Fund (CNDRF). It also gives details about the investment by the non-
government sector, including different UN agencies and other stakeholders such as I/NGOs. Over
a period of two years (2015 -2016), the official records of the Government show that, little more
than NRs. twenty-one billion, nine hundred ninety million (NRs. 21,990,192,958) was released on
disaster relief and response activities from the Central Natural Disaster Relief Fund (CNDRF).
While 56.6 percent of this was released in 2015, the rest was released in 2016, which is attributable
to the 2015 mega earthquake. Data from different UN agencies show that a little more than one
hundred twenty one million USD was mobilized during the review period, though this seems to
be more towards preparedness for response and risk reduction than response. Data from INGOs
shows that together they spent little more than NRs. one billion, two hundred eighty-one million
during the period of two years. The expenditures made by INGOs included support during both
pre-disaster and post-disaster period for addressing specific needs of the most vulnerable and
excluded group of people and promoting income generation and livelihoods in the areas where
government support was lacking.
However, this description of budget allocation and investment on DRM by different sector actors
is not conclusive due to several constraints, and there is a need for a systematic effort and a
culture of institutional accountability on the part of DRM actors in Nepal – both government and
nongovernment.
Cash Compensation to the Affected Families. On the fifth day of the earthquake, the
Government made a number of decisions on extending relief. Families who lost family members
would be compensated with NRs. one hundred thousand each. The bereaved family would also
get NRs. 40,000 for funeral costs. Those whose houses were damaged would get NRs. 15,000
for repair work. Those whose house had collapsed would get NRs. 5,000 for managing immediate
shelter (NRs. 3,000 for the ones whose house was only damaged). To manage food for immediate
consumption, each affected family would get NRs. 2,000. When the reconstruction intervention was
delayed due to bureaucratic and political inefficiencies, in view of upcoming winter, the Government
also decided to give NRs. 25,000, as advance to every affected family for managing temporary
shelter and NRs. 10,000 to manage “warm clothes” like rugs and blankets. While all this diverse
range of relief was essential, there was debate whether cash transfer such as this was the best
mode of immediate humanitarian support, or if there were better alternatives.
Troubles in Identification of Needs and Managing Supplies of Relief Materials and Services. In
the post-disaster chaos, if institutional memories are not strong and if standard operating procedures
are not put in place, proper identification of relief materials needed on ground becomes a challenge.
In addition, the list of necessary relief items needs to be constantly updated with changing needs,
as evidenced in the frustrating experience post the 2015 Earthquake. Senior Government officers
deputed in Central Command Post at NEOC found it difficult (for lack of proper information or
difficulty in compiling and prioritizing the needs) to decide what and where to dispatch the piles of
relief materials. Later, the Government had to depute a team of senior government officers (from
three different ministries led by MoHA) in the emergency warehouse at Tribhuvan International
Airport itself. To address the problem of mismatch between the relief items needed on ground and
the supply of donations of such items, the CNDRC on 30 April 2015 instructed secretaries of the
MoHA, Ministry of Commerce and Supply, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Agriculture Development,
Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Urban Development to sit together to identify and finalize
the list of items needed and disseminate the information widely to national and international donors
and volunteers.3
Distributing relief materials to rural areas remained a particularly challenging task given the perennial
problems of rugged topography, remote and inaccessible countryside, poor road networks and
transportation facilities. Although by and large, the situation remained calm, a few incidences of
looting and capturing of dispatched materials on the way were reported (EIAS 2016). To ensure
safe delivery of relief materials in designated points, Government later air lifted relief supplies or
used overland transportation by Nepal Army and the Armed Police Force (MoHA 2016).
3 The Government also deputed a team in each Customs Offices other than TIA, comprising Local Development Officer,
chiefs of district security forces, chief of the respective Customs Office, and led by Chief District Officer of the respective
district, as the Relief Materials Screening Committee mandated with screening and approving relief materials imported
that are duty-free and maintaining record of all the items received and informing CNDRC quickly (MoHA 2016, pp. 231-
232).
The Road to Sendai
27
Donors, international development partners and domestic volunteer groups had also begun to
distribute relief materials on their own and that created problems of duplication and roadside bias.
Thus, the Government decided to “route earthquake donations through the bank account of the
Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund, trying to provide a one-window service to the affected people
by consolidating amounts, avoiding duplication of effort and ensuring proportional and equitable
access to relief by needy victims in all areas.” International development partners, however, lacked
trust in the government (EIAS 2016), and some of them circumvented the government decision and
sent aid directly through NGOs for distribution (MoHA 2015).
Lessons Learnt
Command and Coordination Mechanism. As with all major disasters, the 2015 Earthquake
became a test case for the Government’s coordination mechanism at various levels. Although
CNDRC remained active and functional throughout, its effectiveness fell short of the urgency of
the circumstance. On the one hand, there was a multi-tier mechanism of command, control and
coordination, on the other, there was a parallel entity created for overview and monitoring, which
primarily comprised of political representation.
The Central Command Post was established at MoHA under the leadership of MoHA Secretary,
drawing secretaries of other nine relevant ministries (MoHA 2015, p. 7). It was the apex operational
unit. At the District level, DDRCs were active as per the mandate. To support their working, one
Joint Secretary was deputed in each affected district supervised directly by a designated Secretary
from Kathmandu.
In addition, in each electoral area of the earthquake affected districts, one Search and Rescue (SAR)
Command Post was set up, under the leadership of MoHA Joint Secretary sent from Kathmandu,
comprising of a team of senior officials from the Nepal Army, the Nepal Police and the Armed
Police Force to look after issues of debris management, corpse management, and distribution of
relief materials and to take preventive measures to control outbreak of epidemic. This mechanism
is yet to be assessed in terms of its effectiveness, overlaps of responsibility and conflict of interest
with DDRCs. About 66,069 army personnel, 41,776 police personnel, and 24,775 APF personnel
were mobilized under the SAR Command Post. As mentioned earlier, a team of senior government
officers (from three different ministries led by MoHA) was deputed in the emergency warehouse
at Tribhuvan International Airport for on-the-spot coordination in supply, distribution and delivery of
relief materials.
Experiences from the Ongoing Recovery and Reconstruction
Since 19 May 2015, the Government decided to end the relief operations and transition towards
recovery phase. Some of the salient issues of recovery phase have been drawn hereunder.
Establishment of National Reconstruction Authority. The National Reconstruction Authority

(NRA), a coordinating and facilitating body formed by the Government of Nepal to manage,
oversee and coordinate the reconstruction work was constituted on 25 December 2015, following
the enactment of the NRA Act on 20 December. By law, its functions included assessing the
damages caused by earthquakes, fixing the priorities of reconstruction, preparing policies, plans
and programs, and facilitating implementation. It can carry out reconstruction, or ensure that it is
done through different agencies, obtain land for reconstruction, and prepare plans for developing
integrated settlements and for ensuring that reconstruction is carried out in keeping with safety
standards.
The objectives of the NRA as articulated in the National Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy,
among others, are to coordinate the work of, and collaborate with, non-governmental organizations,
private sector or communities in order to reconstruct, retrofit and restore partially and completely
damaged residential, community and government buildings and heritage sites; to make them
disaster resistant using local technologies as needed; and to reconstruct (restore) damaged cities
and ancient villages to their original form, while improving the resilience of the structures.
It is also empowered to raise financial resources for reconstruction and to make arrangements
for its effective use. The Authority is responsible for carrying out technical reviews of damaged or
unsafe physical structures and order safe demolition, where required. For all practical purposes, it
is the one-stop institution to oversee, coordinate, and facilitate Nepal’s efforts to build back better,
promote national interest and provide social justice by facilitating resettlement and translocation of
the persons and families displaced by the earthquake (adapted from the NRA Act) – that underpins
the reconstruction policy.
Formulation of Post Disaster Recovery Frameworks. In May 2016, the NRA brought a new Post
Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF) (NRA 2016). The PDRF lays out strategic recovery objectives
and summarizes institutional arrangements and financing strategies, as well as implementation and
monitoring systems, to help plan and manage recovery and reconstruction. It also sets out sector
priorities that will contribute to the achievement of the strategic recovery objectives. With the vision
of “establishment of well-planned, resilient settlements and a prosperous society,” the PDRF sets
out the following strategic recovery objectives:
The Road to Sendai
29
• Restore and improve disaster resilient housing, government buildings and cultural heritage, in
rural areas and cities.
• Strengthen the capacity of people and communities to reduce their risk and vulnerability and
to enhance social cohesion.
• Restore and improve access to services and improve environmental resilience.
• Develop and restore economic opportunities and livelihoods and re-establish productive
sectors.
• Strengthen capacity and effectiveness of the state to respond to the people’s needs and to
effectively recover from future disasters.
Before this, the Government had endorsed the National Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy
(NRRP), 2016. The NRRP provides policy instrument for steering reconstruction and rehabilitation
and outlines organizational structure of the NRA and the implementation modality and approaches.
These policies and guidelines clarify the roles and responsibilities of different institutions working
on reconstruction and rehabilitation. The Advisory Council, Steering Committee and the Executive
Committee of the NRA are now in place. The Council of Ministers has approved guidelines for the
following interventions:
• Housing grant distribution
• Environmental impact assessment
• Land acquisition and land registration
• Public procurement
• Reconstruction regulation
• Land registration, and
• Working with non-governmental organizations.
The key elements of the NRRP are: (a) Reconstruction of housing and cultural heritage sites
following a standard approach of owner-driven housing reconstruction. (b) Relocation and land
use, although there is emphasis that most reconstruction will take place in-situ. Relocation of
villages is discouraged. The policy addresses pooling and developing land, discouraging scattered
settlements and promoting larger and integrated settlements. (c) Engaging the community (including
affected vulnerable social groups, women, children, people with disabilities and senior citizens),
private sector, volunteers and Diasporas in reconstruction. (d) Integrating principles of disaster
risk reduction and build back better, for which use of local building materials is encouraged and
safer designs and stronger infrastructure specifications have been put in place. (e) Linking financial
assistance for housing recovery to the progress of construction.
Private House Reconstruction. Private house reconstruction is one of NRA’s top priority areas. In
two years after the devastating earthquake that destroyed over 765,000 houses, reconstruction of
private houses has gathered little momentum. As of August 2017, 632,047 beneficiaries had signed
the grant agreement and 603,072 of them had collected the first tranche whereas only 56,687
beneficiaries had received the second (Figure 3.1).
800,000 765,000
700,000
603,072
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000 56,687
0
Houses damaged by No. of beneficiaries receiving No. of beneficiaries receiving
earthquake first grant second grant
Figure 3.1: Ratio of beneficiaries receiving house reconstruction grants in 14 crisis-hit districts
(Source: NRA 2017, as of September 2017)
The current fiscal year 2017/18 is seen as the year of reconstruction. The target is to complete the
reconstruction of private households and public infrastructures within the specified timeframe. To
speed up the grant distribution procedures, the NRA has disbursed second and third installments
in advance at the local level. In order to expedite the reconstruction of private houses the NRA has
adopted the following principles:
• Devolution and allocation of reconstruction work among the newly elected local representatives
in respective districts.
• To speed up the grant distribution process, necessary technical assistance to be disbursed in
affected districts.
• Required technical and economic support to be provided to shift the vulnerable settlements to
safer locations.
• Several programs on livelihoods to be continued, including agriculture, animal husbandry,
irrigation, etc.
The Road to Sendai
31
• NRs. 50,000 additional grant or technical support (or both) be made available to single women,
Dalits, elderly and differently able-person to enable them to build earthquake resilient houses
in compliance with the prescribed standards.
(A house under reconstruction in Tipling village, Dhading (Photo credit: Baliyo Ghar/NSET)
Relocation of Hazard-Prone Settlements. NRA has enforced a new procedure to make necessary
arrangements for the beneficiaries and families of the hazard-prone settlements that have been
affected by the earthquakes. The “Procedures for the Relocation and Rehabilitation of Hazard-
prone Settlements, 2073 (2017)” has been enforced from 7 April 2017 as per the authority provided
by Clause 31 of the “Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Structures Affected by the Earthquakes
Act, 2072”. As per the new procedure, “hazard-prone settlement” refers to “… settlements or families
residing in [areas] … identified as hazard-prone” by NRA based on official geological reports (NRA
2017a). A study conducted by NRA to identify vulnerable settlements after the 2015 earthquake
recommended that a total of 2,751 families of 112 communities have to be relocated to safer places
(NRA 2017b).
In such a case, the beneficiaries will be encouraged to create users’ groups involving at least 10
families in each settlement so that the committee can select a safe location for the development
of an integrated settlement. Then, the beneficiaries will be required to submit the land purchase
certificate to NRA. The lands shall be integrated and the relocation and rehabilitation plan prepared,
after which separate programs shall be implemented to gradually develop structures (NRA 2017a).
The procedure also mentions gradual establishment of basic-needs structures like roads, drinking
water supply, electricity, health centers and educational institutions for the integrated settlement.
Youth Volunteerism and Building Temporary Class Rooms in Kaski
Spontaneous and self-motivated volunteerism proliferated across the earthquake-hit districts

immediately after the 2015 earthquake, initiated by young people on their own. As one of the best
examples, voluntary mobilization of young people in Kaski district for school restoration work was
exemplary in bringing people’s life back to normalcy immediately after the earthquake. With this, the
youths in Kaski proved that if responsibilities are given to them, they could perform any emergency
activities in a very coordinated manner without any political, personal or financial interests and
without asking the donors for any funds. (Box 3.1)
Box 3.1: Volunteerism
On 26 April 2015 (next day of the earthquake), both government officials (Regional Administrator, Chief
District Officer, Chief Regional Police Office) and representatives of civil society, media representative
and youth and women volunteers met together in Pokhara and decided to support government relief
and rescue operation in a coordinated manner. One of the major decisions was to form “Citizen Support
Committee for Disaster Management” (CSCDM) under the leadership of Mr. Bishnu Bahadur Bhattarai.
To coordinate properly, the CSCDM formed four sub-committees: impact assessment, volunteer
coordination, relief management, and monitoring and evaluation. The sub-committees held wider
consultations with local political leaders, business houses, students, community level organizations, etc.
and developed their plan for immediate restoration of normal life. Youth Volunteers Coordination Sub-
Committee (YVCsc) was formed and entrusted with the task of mobilizing and coordinating local youths.
In a week, the YVCsc organized a meeting with all like-minded volunteer clubs and local organizations
in the district. The Chief District Officer, Local Development Officer, District Education Officer, head
teachers of affected schools were also invited. The meeting decided to immediately start constructing
temporary class rooms in all schools that were damaged by the earthquake.
Based on the assessment report provided by the Impact Assessment Sub-Committee, the YVCsc,
immediately deployed a four member team to assess the damages in class rooms in various schools,
and explored possibility of using locally available materials for the construction of temporary class
rooms. Taking suggestions from District Education Office, District Development Committee and other
related organizations, they developed and shared their plans to rebuild temporary class rooms, their
locations, and design layouts with government and non-government stakeholders. They also developed
a consensus on applying locally available materials, such as bamboo, bamboo net and tarpaulin, as
per the need.
Within two weeks of the April 2015 earthquake, the YVCsc commenced construction of class rooms with
support from local school teachers, parents and students. By the first week of Jestha, 2072, 50 percent
of the targeted rebuilding of temporary class rooms was achieved and schools were able to resume
classes. A total of 106 temporary class rooms in 32 schools were completed and classes resumed.
A total of 750 volunteers from 45 organizations were mobilized under this initiative. Later, all these
temporary class rooms were replaced by new and permanent class rooms. The YVCs were able to
achieve this with funds generated locally and in many cases managed by the volunteers themselves.
They did not request for funds from any of the donors.
The Road to Sendai
33
Key Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned during the Relief Phase. Despite quick and swift initial response on the part
of the Government, as time progressed, coordination and command issues became increasingly
challenging. A huge influx of international humanitarian teams and the government coordination
mechanism posed a conflict. Some of the lessons learned could be summed up as follows.
• Establishment of NEOC and EOCs network proved to be quite effective, particularly in the
event of breakdown of communications system. It also served as the backbone of the main
line of command and control.
• The NDRF developed in 2013 was implemented for the first time in 2015 Earthquake. This
proved to be quite instrumental, along with the realization that it needs to be revised based on
the lessons learned.
• The coordination mechanism envisaged by Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982 proved to be
insufficient. The Government of Nepal, driven by circumstances, took one decision after
another on matters of effective coordination and oversight. This has to be reviewed and an
appropriate and robust coordination framework has to be worked out.
• A robust, well tested and resilient information and communication system has to be maintained,
and use of information and communication technology, social media and apps needs to be
promoted that can be of use during and after emergency.
• A legally-binding and effective “one window framework” should be put in place beforehand in a
way that does not undermine the sense of voluntarism and spontaneous humanitarian support
initiatives. Trust, transparency and recognition of contribution have to be ensured. Since the
‘one window framework’ has been understood differently, the Government should endorse a
guideline for the same.
• An integrated but separate national body of INSARAG-standard SAR needs to be immediately
instituted drawing resources from the Nepal Army, the Armed Police Force and the Nepal
Police.
• Arrival of international humanitarian response team should be need-based and smaller in size
so that they do not create extra pressure on coordination, and the domestic SAR capacities
are not undermined.
• Due to varied level of understanding of the local DRR entities, such as the DDRCs, there was
also variation in effectiveness of institutional capacity to respond.
Lesson Learned from Recovery Phase. Despite good intentions, recovery and reconstruction
have been very slow. Though unacceptable, the reconstruction process has been an endeavor of
trial and error and is stuck in political and legislative delays and conflict of interests (NRA 2017b,
p. 2).
• Despite a number of policy frameworks already in place before the 2015 Earthquake, and
additional policy documents developed for and by NRA (Box 3.2), there is still a need to put
in place a set of standard guidelines, operating procedures and systems, including strict
implementation of building codes.
Box 3.2: Reconstruction related policy and legal frameworks

• Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Guidelines, 2072
• Private Housing Grant Distribution Procedure, 2072
• Environmental Impact Assessment Related Procedure, 2072
• Land Acquisition Related Procedures, 2072
• Land Registration Related Procedures, 2072
• Public Procurement Related Procedures, 2072
• Mobilization of NGO Sectors Related Procedures, 2072
• Post Disaster Recovery Framework, 2073
• Grievances Hearing Procedure, 2073
• Reconstruction Fund Mobilization Related Procedure, 2073
• Community Rebuilding Committee Related Procedure, 2073
• Private Housing Reconstruction Technical Inspection, 2073
• Training Procedure, 2073
• Training Strategies, 2073
• Reconstruction of Schools Procedure, 2073
(Source: NRA 2017b, p. 7)
• Management and mobilization of competent human resources is a major stumbling block that
needs to be addressed.
• Coordination, collaboration and cooperation among governmental, non-governmental, private
sectors, and the affected community remained a challenge. Observations show that in DDRCs,
mechanisms that are better experienced at local level coordination and facilitation, are grossly
bypassed in the reconstruction process.
• The PDRF identified the need for USD 9.3 billion for reconstruction. So far the pledged amount
from international development partners stands at USD 4.3 billion. There is an evident resource
gap (46.2 percent) to accomplish the task of complete reconstruction.
The Road to Sendai
35
• In addition to resource gap, there is also a capacity gap of NRA in implementation. An overview
of NRA’s expenditure portfolio shows that a considerable size of capital fund has remained
unspent over the last two consecutive financial years.
• Local NGOs and NRCS district chapters proved to be better district lead support agencies
than INGOs since they are better versed with coordination, joint discussion and facilitation.
• Nepal’s post-earthquake reconstruction did not succeed in maintaining the pace in building
private houses also because there was a dearth of trained engineers willing to work in
earthquake-hit districts. Those who were deployed by NRA to earthquake hit areas, were
mostly engaged in certifying eligibility to get next installment of payment instead of facilitating
the re-construction process.
Summary
This Chapter takes a relook at the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake and reviews follow up response and
recovery activities. It also draws on learning from relief operations conducted immediately after
the Earthquake, and on-going recovery and reconstruction work. It throws light on the inability of
the prevailing coordination mechanism to keep up with the requirements of the relief operation
and the main hurdles impeding momentum of response work. This was most evident in case of
distribution of relief materials through the “one window policy” of the government, which underlines
the necessity for developing legally binding guidelines and making it public beforehand in case of
future disasters. The chapter also shares the lessons learnt both during the relief phase and the
recovery phase.
Chapter 4
The Post-2015 DRM Regulatory
Framework in Nepal
The Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Nepal’s current Constitution mentions disaster risk management in the country for the first time
and it has clearly assigned DRM as a concurrent responsibility of different tiers of governments,
particularly the local governments. Article 51 stipulates the policies to be pursued by the state. The
sub-article G that relates to “policies relating to protection, promotion and use of natural resources,”
mentions that the state shall formulate policies on development of sustainable and reliable irrigation
by controlling water-induced disasters and expediting river management.
Article 51(G) (9) of the Constitution states that the State shall pursue policies relating to, among
several other issues, protection, promotion and use of natural resources. Sub-article 51(G)9 also
allows Government to make policies related to “advance warning, preparedness, rescue, relief
and rehabilitation in order to mitigate risks from natural disasters.” Further, Article 267 of the
Constitution gives the Government rights to mobilize the Nepal Army in DRM. The Constitution
says, “The Government of Nepal may also mobilize the Nepal Army in, among other things, the
disaster management works, as provided for in the Federal law.”
Article 273 of the Constitution gives the President several emergency powers. Article 273 (2)
says, “if there arises a grave emergency in a State because of a natural calamity or epidemic, the
concerned state government may request the Government of Nepal to declare a state of emergency
in respect of the whole of the State or of any specified part thereof.”
The Constitution of Nepal has clearly stipulated that DRM is a shared responsibility of all levels of
governments (Table 4.1). The Constitution states that natural and man-made disaster preparedness,
rescue, relief and rehabilitation responsibility falls under the concurrent power/jurisdiction of federal
and provincial government. Of the 22 tasks assigned to local level, DRM is one of them (Schedule
8). In the list of concurrent powers of federal, provincial and local level, DRM is put as one of the
subjects (Schedule 9) – implying that DRM is a shared responsibility of every layer of governance
system, but more so at the lower level.
The Road to Sendai
37
Table 4.1: Constitutional provisions on DRM responsibility

Schedule Subject of schedule Provision related to DRM
Solo power
5 Federal Powers/Jurisdiction • Land use policy, housing development policy,
tourism policy, environment adaptation (#29)
6 Provincial Powers/Jurisdiction • Land management (#16)
• Forest, water and environment mgmt. (#19)
8 Local Level Powers/Jurisdiction • Disaster management (#20)
Concurrent power
7 Federal and Provincial Powers/ • Natural and man-made disaster preparedness,
Jurisdiction rescue, relief and rehabilitation (#17)
9 Federation, Provincial and Local • Disaster management (#9)
Level Powers/Jurisdiction
Source: Constitution of Nepal, 2015.
The new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017
On 24 September 2017, the legislative-parliament unanimously passed a new “Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Act, 2017.” In many respects, the Act is considered far progressive than
the existing Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982. First, its approach to disaster is more comprehensive
and it recognizes both risk reduction and management as integral parts of the task. Second, instead
of committee-based coordination mechanism, the Act has proposed a clear multi-tier institutional
structure of DRM (at the national, provincial, district, local/municipal, and the community-based).
Third, there is also a clear provision of Disaster Management Fund at the federal, provincial and
local levels. Fourth, the law has given the security forces the responsibility of search and rescue
under civilian command. Fifth, the Government of Nepal has the ultimate responsibility of declaring
disaster emergency if circumstances so emerge.
The Act has developed two kinds of DRM structures: One with policy and administrative decision-
making and supervisory roles (consisting mainly of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
National Council and Executive Committee), and the other with more implementation roles
(consisting mainly of National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority, and the
provincial, district and local DMCs).
In tune with the federal structure of the country, the DRRM Act has envisaged a multi-tier DRRM
structure, comprising of the NRA on top, followed by Provincial DM Committees, District DM
Committees, and finally the Local DM Committees as the lowest units. There is also a provision for
forming community-based Disaster Preparedness and Response Committees.
The DRRM Act, 2017 Act has replaced the earlier Natural Calamities (Relief) Act of 1982, which
remained the blueprint for DRM in Nepal for about 35 years, with the aim of smooth implementation
of relief and rescue initiatives under the leadership of MoHA, and. The 1982 Act had provisions
of institutional coordination mechanisms required for DRM. However, despite two consecutive
amendments in the Act, it still missed the provision of proactive risk reduction measures, such as
mitigation, preparedness, and mainstreaming DRR in development.1
Other DRM Regulatory Frameworks
Apart from the provisions of the Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 1982 disaster response planning
and implementation has been steered by several Operational Guidelines and Action Plans such as
National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal (1996) and the Guidelines for distribution
of relief materials to disaster affected people. The Tenth Five year Plan (2002 - 2007) and the
subsequent Three Year Plans (2007-2010 and 2011-2013) had given due focus to mainstreaming
DRM in sectoral plans of agriculture, water resources, health, housing, mines and geology, etc.
directed by respective sectoral policies.
Existing legal framework comprises of the following:
Local Government Operation Act, 2017. The legislative-parliament recently passed the Local
Government Operation Act, 2017 that outlines the roles and responsibilities of rural municipalities,
municipalities, district councils/district coordination committees, and provincial coordination
councils. This Act entrusts the local level units with the responsibilities of formulating their own laws,
by-laws, regulations; levying taxes; and raising funds, in addition to the judiciary responsibilities.
The Local Government Operation Act, 2017 defines the following disaster management
responsibilities under the jurisdiction of urban and rural municipalities:
• DRM related local policy, law, guideline and implementation, oversight and monitoring of plan.
• Local level disaster preparedness and response plan, early warning, SAR and prepositioning
and distribution of relief materials and coordination.
• Local river embankment, landslide control, and management and control of rivers.
• Mapping of disaster risk area and identification of settlements at risk and relocation.
• Support, coordination and cooperation between and among federal, provincial and local
communities and institutions and private sector.
1 It is after the declaration of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990-1999) that both the
government and non-government agencies started to emphasize preparedness and mitigation activities in Nepal.
The Road to Sendai
39
• Establishment of Disaster Management Fund, operation and resource mobilization.

• Formulation, implementation, monitoring and oversight of local level projects on DRM.
• Local level DIMS, research and assessments.
• Emergency operation system at local level.
• Operation of community-based DRM programs.
• Other functions related to disaster management.
This new Act replaces the Local Self Governance Act, 1999 that helped institutionalize the concept
of local-self-governance under decentralization framework and empowered the local bodies for
managing environment-friendly resilient development.
National DRR Policy and Action Plan, 2017-2030. The Ministry of Home Affairs has led the
process of formulating National DRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan, which will replace the
National Strategy on Disaster Risk Management, 2009 (NSDRM). Whereas the NSDRM was
developed in tune with Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), the NDRR Policy, 2017-2030 follows
the SFDRR priorities with a vision to make Nepal a safer and resilient nation by 2030. Aligned with
the global SFDRR targets, it aims to substantially reduce death rates and size of the population
affected by disasters and enhance resilience of important infrastructures and basic services
including livelihoods, agriculture, industry, road, communication, water and sanitation, health and
education, in order to reduce their loss and damage by disasters.
National Disaster Response Framework, 2013. The Government of Nepal endorsed the
National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF) in 2013 with a view “to guide more effective and
coordinated national response in case of a large scale disaster.” Its scope of work includes: a) the
response preparedness and emergency response at national, regional, district and local levels, and
b) actions to be taken immediately before, during and after the disaster directly to save lives and
property, maintain law and order, take care of sick, injured and vulnerable people, and to provide
essential services and to protect public property.
The NDRF, 2013 clearly lays down the role of the government after a major disaster strikes and
the attributes of an effective coordination to be maintained through humanitarian clusters and with
international teams, donors. It also explains the special arrangements to be made for national
response during emergencies and the roles that various organizations would perform from hour
zero of the incident till a month after. The government has planned to revise the NDRF, 2013 to
make it more pragmatic based on the 2015 earthquake response experiences.
Existing DRM Institutions and Mandates:
There are a number of institutions that have roles to play in disaster risk reduction and management
in Nepal. A summary of their profiles is given below:
Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. The Office of the Prime Minister and
the Council of Ministers provides policy directions and overview to implementation of response
activities during major disasters including declaration of emergencies. It further ensures transfer
of necessary resources from government’s relief fund and mobilization of other sources of funds
required for making rescue and relief operations effective. Post-earthquake, it has played a key role
in supervising NRA and providing overview to recovery and reconstruction work.
Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) is the focal ministry for disaster risk management in Nepal
and has played a lead role in post disaster response, particularly managing rescue and relief
operations, through mobilization of security forces and other humanitarian actors, coordinated by
Disaster Relief Committees at central, regional, district and local levels. The new DRRM Act, 2017
has envisioned a National DRRM Authority to be established within MoHA.
Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) plays a critical role in enhancing
technical and functional capacities of the local bodies for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into
periodic development plans and control of fire. It developed several Guidelines and Manuals to
support the local bodies to prepare harmonized DRM plan in consistence with the 14-step Planning
Guidelines. It has also played a key role in post-disaster response and recovery as a member of
District Disaster Relief Committee.
National Planning Commission (NPC) plays a lead role in mainstreaming CCA and DRR into
national policies and plans (periodic and annual plans) and ensures conformity of DRR policies with
other national and sectoral policies. It also guides the sectoral ministries in preparing risk-resilient
development plans and has recently drafted a mainstreaming guideline for them. Post-earthquake,
it was instrumental in finalizing post disaster need assessment, developing policies for resilient
recovery and reconstruction, mobilizing resources and setting up the National Reconstruction
Authority (NRA).
Water and Energy Commission (WECS) plays an important role in conducting empirical studies
on rivers and streams and developing policies and plans for sustainable management of water
resources in the long run at river-basin and sub-basin levels. While developing such plans, attention
is given to identify current and future risks from water induced disasters, and measures to minimize
the risks during implementation.
The Road to Sendai
41
Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC), comprising of 27 members chaired by the
Minister for Home Affairs, is the highest operational body mandated for effective and efficient relief
and ensuring coordination between government and non-government agencies as stipulated in the
Natural Calamities (Relief) Act, 1982. The Committee holds at least two meetings annually, or as
necessary, to manage challenges posed by any disaster at any time. The existence of CNDRC will
soon be over with the enactment of the new DRRM Act, 2017.
Ministry of Irrigation through Department of Water Induced Disaster Management is

mandated for formulating and implementing policy on water induced disaster management, flood
management and river training. Likewise, the Ministry also works on minimizing future disaster risk
during construction of new irrigation schemes or maintenance of existing ones.
Ministry of Education (MoE) is mandated for developing education curricula and raising technical
capacity on DRM within MoE. In addition, in coordination with Department of Urban Development
and Building Construction (DUDBC) under Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) it has prepared
earthquake resistant building construction Guidelines for schools and raised awareness programs
on earthquake safety and resilient building construction for the teachers, students and school
management committees.
Ministry of Urban Development is mandated with making settlements more resilient to natural
and human-made disaster risks. MoUD has been putting considerable efforts into implementation
of integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and resilience to
disasters while planning settlements and cities. The ministry’s key priorities are the implementation
of risk sensitive land use planning and enforcement of building code for resilient construction in
Nepal in the context of diverse ecological setting, which is prone to disasters of various kinds.
Ministry coordinates and provides necessary guidance to the DUDBC for its effective and efficient
technical support to implement risk informed policy & plan.
Other ministries working on DRM include:

• Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC)
• Ministry of Environment (MoEn)
• Ministry of Science and Technology and Environment (MoSTE)
• Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP)
• Ministry of Industries (MoI)
• Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD)
• Ministry of Water Resources (MoWRs)
DRM Priorities under Current 14th Development Plan
The current 14th five-year development plan (2016-2020) accords priority to minimize impacts
from water-induced disasters (NPC 2016, pp. 84-87) on human lives, properties and physical
infrastructure. It prioritizes river embankment programmes for control of floods and landslides, and
minimizes the impacts of inundation. The Plan also prioritizes disaster risk management due to
environment degradation and climate change (pp. 252-261).
Summary
This chapter mainly draws on existing institutional and policy framework with regard to DRM in
Nepal, namely the 2015 Constitution of Nepal, the Local Government Operation Act, 2017 the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017 and the draft DRR Policy and Strategic Action
Plan. Since the time of the 10th Plan (2002-2007) Nepal’s periodic development plans have
consistently mentioned DRM priorities. However, without a clear understanding about how DRM
is linked to development, the respective sectoral plans could not be specific to DRR priorities. The
new DRM Act, the draft National DRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan and the draft Mainstreaming
Guideline provide systematic guidance on making effective disaster response, risk reduction,
mitigation and recovery.
The Road to Sendai
43
Chapter 5
From HFA to SFDRR: Carving the
Road Ahead
Nepal’s Response to Yokohama Strategy
During the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, 1990-2000, the World Conference
on Natural Disaster Reduction was organized in Yokohama, Japan on 23-27 May 1994. The
Conference adopted the Yokohama Strategy and the related Plan of Action for a Safer World for the
rest of the decade and beyond. The Yokohama Plan of Action promised to promote and strengthen
international cooperation to prevent, reduce and mitigate natural and other disasters with particular
emphasis on (a) human and institutional capacity building and strengthening, (b) technology
sharing, the collection, the dissemination and the utilization of information, and (c) mobilization of
resources (UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs 1994).
In response to the Yokohama Plan of Action, Nepal constituted the IDNDR National Committee,
which prepared the National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal, adopted by the
Government in 1996 (MoHA 1996). Primarily in the form of a matrix, this Plan of Action gave an
outline of preparedness, response, reconstruction and rehabilitation, and mitigation with stipulated
priority activities, time of completion and roles assigned to implementing agencies. The Action
Plan also constituted an M&E committee in order to monitor the implementation, which, however,
remained weak.
HFA (2005-2015) Achievements
The World Conference on Disaster Reduction was held from 18 to 22 January 2005 in Kobe,
Hyogo, Japan, which adopted the HFA, 2005-2015. The Conference provided an opportunity to
promote a strategic and systematic approach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks. It underscored
the need for building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters (UNISDR 2005).
The scope of HFA, according to UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, encompassed disasters
caused by hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks
(UNISDR 2005). It thus lent a holistic and multi-hazard approach to DRM and the way in which it
can have a significant impact on social, economic, cultural and environmental systems, as stressed
in the Yokohama Strategy.
HFA Priorities for action were to (a) ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority
with a strong institutional basis for implementation, (b) identify, assess and monitor disaster risks
and enhance early warning, (c) use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety
and resilience, (d) reduce the underlying risk factors, and (e) strengthen disaster preparedness for
effective response at all levels (UNISDR 2005).
Nepal’s performance in translating HFA’s commitments into reality achieved mixed success (MoHA
2015, UNDP Nepal 2015). The progress and achievements also remained uneven in Nepal – as
evidenced in the national progress reports submitted to the UN on the implementation of the HFA
(2009-2011, 2011-2013, and 2013-2015).
The final report submitted to the UN, entitled “National Progress Report on the Implementation of
the Hyogo Framework for Action” (MoHA 2015) and an independent assessment of DRM integration
into development plans (UNDP Nepal 2015) show that though there are a few achievements, there
is tremendous scope for improvement. The Government of Nepal directed the local authorities to
allocate 5 percent of local budget for DRM. A consolidated guideline and plan for mainstreaming
DRR into development is under making. Nepal utilized the National Adaptation Programme of
Action (NAPA) and the Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA) to mitigate some key climate risks
and mainstream climate change adaptation into development planning at the national, regional and
local levels.
Strengthening policy and institutional framework remained largely unachieved. The most awaited
Disaster Management Act could not be endorsed during the review period. The NRRC Flagship
Programmes (now phased out) contributed to ensure risk reduction efforts aligned with NSDRM.
During HFA period, in the

Box 5.1: Nepal’s key policy response to HFA absence of a high level dedicated
• Adoption of the cluster approach (2008 onward) national DRR institution, disaster
• National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (NSDRM), 2009 preparedness activities were
• District Disaster Preparedness Response Plan, 2011 mainly executed by MoHA while
• Local DRM Plan Guideline, 2012 actions on DRR mainstreaming,
• National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF), 2013 recovery planning, seismic
• Post-Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF), 2016. resilience building and disaster
mitigation were carried out by other
agencies in coordination of MoHA.
The Road to Sendai
45
A high level Climate Change Council, formed under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister to
support inter-sectoral coordination on climate change actions, could not be very effective. Now that
a new DRRM Act has been endorsed, a new DRR institution at national level linked to provincial,
district and local level set ups, is soon expected to be set up.
MoFALD in collaboration with IFRC developed a set of criteria to define ‘community resilience’ and
used this as a standardized tool to gauge resilience level of the community. Information obtained
through this was further used to identify capacity gaps of the community and design interventions
to mitigate those gaps. Using this approach over 635 VDCs and municipalities (a quarter of the
population) were reached. In addition, MoFALD supported 58 municipalities in equipping them with
fire brigade services and was instrumental in founding crops and livestock insurance system. During
this period, national and district level land use mapping was completed, including that of 254 VDCs
and Early Warning System (EWS) was set up in seven major river basins. However, the approval
of ‘Early Warning Strategic Action Plan’ to guide installation, operation and maintenance of EWS
throughout the country remained pending and local capacities for multi-hazard risk assessment
could not be built.
National capacities for emergency preparedness and response were enhanced during the review
period through the establishment of NEOC in Kathmandu and expansion of a network of EOC
throughout the country that included 5 in regions, 49 in districts and 1 in municipality. The EOCs are
now equipped with 24/7 communication system and Standard operation procedure (SOP) to work
under emergency and have played a key role in conducting simulation exercises in many districts. A
tailor made SAHANA System for managing disaster information was introduced within MoHA which
is yet to be fully institutionalized and made operational.
During the review period, 12 warehouses were established in strategic locations with the support
of Nepal Red Cross Society, with a capacity to support a maximum of 36,000 families. This was
far lower than the agreed goal of establishing a network of warehouses across the country with
adequate food supply. Further, the Government identified and secured 83 safe open spaces for
emergency response within Kathmandu Valley to serve as hubs for response efforts during a large-
scale disaster.
A nationally owned humanitarian cluster system approach has been very effective as a primary
response mechanism for making immediate response and providing early recovery support. A
total of 11 humanitarian clusters, each representing members from government, non-government,
donors and UN Agencies, has been set up for providing humanitarian assistance in the aftermath
of a disaster. Each of the clusters are further engaged in developing early recovery plans which
are integrated with cluster specific response plans. The National Disaster Response Framework
(NDRF) served as a key tool for coordination of 2015 earthquake response and facilitated timely
decision making and flow of information from Kathmandu to the districts.
To respond to the recovery and reconstruction needs of post 2015 Earthquake, the National
Reconstruction Authority (NRA) was established on 25 December 2015 (2072) for five years, to
lead and manage the recovery and reconstruction of damaged houses and infrastructure. Under
the guidance of Post-Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF) (2016-2020) the NRA aims to complete
the entire reconstruction work within five years’ time based on the principles of Build Back Better in
coordination with development partners.
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
The Sendai Framework aims at achieving “substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives,
livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets
of persons, businesses, communities and countries” by 2030. This expected outcome would
be monitored through indicators against seven targets. The seven targets aim to contribute to
reducing (a) mortality, (b) number of affected people, (c) economic losses, and (d) damage to
critical infrastructure; and in increasing (e) the number of national and local DRR strategies, (f)
level of international cooperation, and (g) availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning
systems and disaster risk information.
The four Priorities Areas of SFDRR are explained below in a given context:
Understanding disaster risk. The primary focus of understanding disaster risk is to conduct
periodic disaster risk assessments and disseminate risk information to the policy makers and other
actors working on disaster risk reduction planning. For this, a comprehensive and robust disaster
information management system capable of generating updated information on disaster loss and
damage and anticipated disaster risks is a must. This should be followed by a mechanism of regular
information dissemination about nature and characteristics of hazards, exposure and vulnerability
to help risk-informed development.
Nepal’s current status. Nepal has a system of collecting data on past disaster occurrences and loss
and damage but the system has a lot of inadequacies. Disaster data are collected, compiled and
maintained by MoHA in an online DRR Portal outside the SAHANA System, which was introduced
as the main element of a functional DIMS. Due to limited institutional capacity to relate disaster
information with development planning, setting up of a DIMS did not ever get priority over the
core business of MoHA and existing SAHANA System was not utilized to its full potential. Loss
and damage data are not linked to hazard and socio-economic data or connected to geospatial
The Road to Sendai
47
and physiographic data. A system of conducting periodic risk assessment does not exist. Limited
capability for analysis of available data, leads to poor understanding of current and future trends
of disasters and its potential impacts on development, and undermines the opportunity of timely
informing the policy makers about the risks. National capacity gaps in understanding disasters are
further widened by lack of a committed DRR training institute.
Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. Progress on disaster risk
reduction depends upon how disaster risk management priorities are integrated into existing
governance system of a country at national and sub-national or even local levels with respect to
planning, implementation and monitoring of development results. A separate system for delivering
results on disaster risk reduction - reducing loss and damage caused by disasters and avoidance
of creating new risks - outside the prevailing governance mechanism, can neither be effective nor
long lasting. Only through a risk-informed governance system, integration of disaster risk reduction
priorities into national and sectoral plans and budgets can be ensured.
Nepal’s current status. Despite Nepal having observed notable success in formulating disaster
management law and regulations in the past as compared to many other countries, it remains
far behind in bringing up needed timely reforms, which heavily push Nepal’s risk management
approach backward and make it primarily response-centric. The NSDRM (2009) made an effort
to transform Nepal’s response-focused disaster management approach to a more comprehensive
and proactive risk reduction approach, but it could not succeed much due to lack of a progressive
DRM law and a dedicated national DRM institution. Despite the NSDRM having made clear mention
of gender sensitivity and social inclusion issues in its directive principle the actual implementation
could not prioritize inclusive DRRM. As a result, disaster risk reduction, response and recovery did
not get adequate attention in national planning and the actions were predominantly influenced by
ad-hoc way of responding to the needs.
Promulgation of NDRF (2013), the new DRM Law (2017) and finalization of long-term national DRR
policy and strategic action plan aligned to SFDRR priorities, demonstrate strong commitment of the
government for building resilience to disasters by establishing a system of risk-governance at all
levels. A new institutional architecture being worked out by the Government as per the provisions
of the new DRM Law is expected to institute risk-governance in each three tiers of the government
set up under the new federal structure.
Disaster preparedness for effective response and ‘build back better.’ Being prepared for
disasters and making effective response requires having knowledge and capacities to effectively
anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of disasters. Capacities are needed to manage
all types of emergencies and for transitioning from response phase to recovery. Effective response
to disasters is based on sound preparedness guided by risk analysis and effective early warnings.
Capabilities for contingency and evacuation planning, stockpiling of emergency equipment and
supplies, conducting simulation exercises and coordination and communication system during
emergency are most needed. This must be further supported by formal institutional, legal and
budgetary capacities.
Nepal’s current status. Nepal’s capacities for responding to small scale disaster has developed
fairly well over the past few years mainly for flood hazards. Guided by a number of policies,
guidelines, manuals and regulatory provisions related to disaster response, past work on early
warning, developing contingency plans, conducting relief operations and emergency management
has been relatively successful despite some capacity gaps with respect to trained human resources
and equipment on SAR within security forces (including Nepal Army, Armed Police Force, and
Nepal Police) and abilities to make gender responsive disaster response.
National capacities required to respond to medium to large disasters across the country need
to be augmented through a pool of dedicated Light and Medium SAR Teams and community-
based first responders deployed at strategic locations and provisions of adequate equipment and
infrastructure for SAR training and operations.
Nepal’s capacities for recovery from disaster is largely constrained by overlapping institutional
mandates and post-disaster recovery not given due attention. Before 2015, process of drafting a
national recovery framework had advanced to the extent of clarifying roles and responsibilities of
different institutions during recovery. However, the process could not be completed and only after
the devastating Earthquake of 2015 the concept of resilient recovery and reconstruction gained
momentum. To facilitate expedited recovery and reconstruction of damaged houses, infrastructure
and livelihood by the earthquake, the Government promulgated a National Reconstruction Act
(2015) that led to setting up of the National Reconstruction Authority and formulated Reconstruction
and Rehabilitation Policy and Post Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF) in 2016. Current post
earthquake on-going recovery and reconstruction is guided by these policies. The new DRM Act
(2017) has emphasized on recovery from disasters at par with disaster risk reduction and response.
Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. Disaster risk reduction approaches often face
severe setbacks due to lack of sufficient budget allocations from regular funding sources. Public
and private investments in DRR for implementing both structural and non-structural measures to
enhance the economic, social, health and cultural resilience of people, community and the society
are essential. Investments in applying such DRR measures not only support innovation, growth
and job creation but also contribute to saving lives, preventing and reducing losses and ensuring
effective recovery and rehabilitation.
The Road to Sendai
49
Nepal’s current status. Nepal’s investment in DRM has been mostly unpredictable and lopsided in
favor of post disaster relief guided by the decisions of CNDRC. Approaches of DRR mainstreaming
into national and sectoral plans and budgets based on periodic risk assessments and provisions of
risk sensitive land-use plans are not yet institutionalized, which hinders investing for risk reduction,
mitigation and resilience building through regular channels. Bringing private investments for risk
reduction is at an experimental stage in Nepal. However, the mandatory provisions of Nepal Rastra
Bank which is applicable to banking and financing institutions for approval of construction loans
only for code complaint building designs, has created positive incentives for encouraging seismic
resilience. There is a growing opportunity to invest for risk transfer through a viable insurance
mechanism that would finally trigger building safety nets and protecting loss and damage to
individual assets and community infrastructure.
Other International Frameworks and Commitments
The Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (AMCDRR). After the advent
of the Sendai Framework, the first Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction
(AMSDRR) was organized in India in November 2016. As a follow-up of the 6th Asian Ministerial
Conference outcome (2014) and as a requirement of the Sendai Framework, the AMCDRR
conference concluded with the adoption of the New Delhi Declaration; the Asia Regional Plan for
Implementation of the Sendai Framework together with a ten point Voluntary Commitment Action
Statements.
Box 5.2 : Key milestones of the AMCDRR roadmap by 2018

1. Technical guidance by UNISDR to national indicators is finalized with a link to SDG targets and
indicators.
2. 50 percent of countries have prepared a design to establish a national mechanism to collect,
analyze and disseminate information on disaster losses and risk aiming to achieve appropriate
level of disaggregation for gender, age and disability.
3. 40 percent of countries have revised/ developed their national strategies and/ or plans for
disaster risk reduction in line with the Sendai target (e).
4. 50 percent of countries have reviewed their initial progress in implementation of the Sendai
Framework through the Sendai Monitor.
5. 40 percent of countries have established multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder platforms at
national and local levels to foster dialogue and cooperation between governments, science and
technology community and other stakeholders for risk-sensitive development and innovative risk
management.
6. 10 percent of countries have developed regulatory or policy frameworks to reinforce risk
considerations and risk reduction measures into development initiatives, particularly in the
infrastructure sector (Source: AMCDRR, 2016, p. 6).
AMCDRR provides, first, broad policy direction to guide the implementation of the Sendai Framework
in the context of the 2030 sustainable development agendas in the region. Second, it also provides
a long term road map, spanning the 15-year horizon of the Sendai Framework. This outlines a
chronological pathway for implementation of priorities to achieve seven global targets. And finally,
it provides a two-year action plan with specific activities that are prioritized based on the long term
road map and in line with the policy direction (for milestone activities by 2018 Box 5.2).
The Paris Agreement. On 12 December 2015, the 1992 Parties to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, and a new legally-binding framework
for an internationally coordinated effort to tackle climate change (Climate Focus, 2015). The Paris
Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by
keeping a global temperature rise for this century below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to
limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of
climate change. To reach these goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework,
and an enhanced capacity building framework are being put in place. This will support action by
developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives
(Box 5.3).
The Paris Agreement defines a universal, legal framework to “strengthen the global response to the
threat of climate change” (Art. 2). It establishes the obligation of all Parties to contribute to climate
Box 5.3: The pre-2020 action of the Paris Agreement

The decision calls for enhanced action prior to 2020. This can be summarized in the following
categories:
Mitigation: Parties are urged to ratify and implement the second commitment period to the Kyoto
Protocol up to 2020, to make and implement a mitigation pledge, and improve ensuring and reporting
processes. Parties resolve to strengthen the existing technical examination process on mitigation,
which means increased cooperation with non-country stakeholders, increased consultations and
dissemination of results.
Adaptation: Parties have decided to launch a technical examination on adaptation, which will
function in a similar manner to the technical examination on mitigation, focusing on lesson sharing
and identifying opportunities for implementation and cooperative action.
Finance: The COP decision ‘strongly urges’ developed countries to scale up their levels of financial
support with a concrete plan to reach the USD 100 billion target by 2020. The Decision singles out
adaptation finance as an area, which needs a significant increase of finance from current levels.
(Source: Climate Focus 2015)
The Road to Sendai
51
change mitigation and adaptation. It requires that all countries develop plans delineating ways
to contribute to climate change mitigation, and commit their “nationally determined contributions”
(NDCs). The Paris Agreement is unique compared to any other international agreements as it
puts emphasis on nationally owned processes to define the mitigation goals and on setting up
mechanisms to monitor and report on progress and establishes a framework for cooperative action
on climate change beyond 2020. It further aims at enhancing “adaptive capacity, strengthening
resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change” through cooperation between the countries.
Nepal ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change on 4 October 2016 and since then it has
been actively engaged in implementation processes led by UNFCCC. Nepal submitted its first
NDC in 2015 and is currently developing National Adaptation Plan (NAP) that would help address
medium and long-term adaptation needs and reduce climate vulnerabilities through a sectoral
approach. Nepal has put climate change adaptation at the centre of its development plans and
policies and has successfully piloted community adaptation programmes through implementation
of Environment-Friendly Local Governance (EFLG) Framework and Local Adaptation Plan of Action
(LAPA) in collaboration with the local government authorities.
The Sustainable Development Goals. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted
by the world leaders in September 2015 at the UN Global Summit officially came into force on 1
January 2016. Over the next fifteen years countries will mobilize efforts to end all forms of poverty,
fight inequalities and tackle climate change (UN Sustainable Development Homepage, UN, 2017).
The SDGs built on the success and challenges of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
aim to go further to end all forms of poverty (NPC, 2017a). Although, the SDGs are not legally
binding, governments are expected to take ownership and establish national frameworks for the
achievement of the 17 Goals. Six of the 17 Goals are directly related to disaster risk, climate
change risk and resilience (Table 5.1). A reflection paper prepared by the UN Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction identifies 25 SDG targets related to DRR (captured in 10 of the 17 SDGs), firmly
establishing the role of DRR as a core development priority of the SDGs (UNISDR, 2015).
Table 5.1: Disaster risk, climate change risk and resilience issues embraced by SDGs
Goals Targets
Goal 1. End poverty in all its By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and
forms everywhere reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other
shocks and disasters (1.5)
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient
food security and improved agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain
nutrition and promote ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme
sustainable agriculture weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land
and soil quality (2.4)
Goal 9. Build resilient Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional
infrastructure, promote inclusive and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-
and sustainable industrialization being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all (9.1)
and foster innovation Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing
countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to
African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and
small island developing States (9.a)
Goal 11. Make cities and human By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic
settlements inclusive, safe, services and upgrade slums (11.1)
resilient and sustainable By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for
participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and
management in all countries (11.3)
By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people
affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global
gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with
a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations (11.5)
By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements
adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion,
resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to
disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for DRR
2015-2030, holistic DRM at all levels (11.b)
Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical
assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials
(11.c)
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable
12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and
consumption and production
awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature (12.8)
patterns
Goal 13. Take urgent action to Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural
combat climate change and its disasters in all countries (13.1)
impacts
Source: UNSD (2017)
The Road to Sendai
53
The Government of Nepal has shown strong commitment to implementation of SDGs by publishing
a national SDG report (SDGs 2016-2030)1 in 2015 and a Baseline Report in 2017 which includes
national baseline, targets and indicators against the global ones as well as analysis of policy and
institutional context and challenges in achievements of each of the SDGs. Starting from the 14th
5-year development plan, the Government is all set to use the national SDG result framework to
prepare consecutive periodic development plans till 2030. The SDG targets and indicators are
well harmonized with Sendai targets and indicators, and conforms to integration of climate change
adaptation and DRR into development.
The Addis Ababa Action Agenda. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), adopted at the
Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 2015)
and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 69/313 of 27 July 2015, is a new global
framework for financing sustainable development that aligns all financing flows and policies with
economic, social and environmental priorities and ensures that financing is stable and sustainable.
The Action Agenda draws upon all sources of finance, technology and innovation, promotes
trade and debt sustainability, harnesses data and addresses systemic issues. The Action Agenda
provides a comprehensive set of policy actions by Member States, with a package of over 100
concrete measures to finance sustainable development, transform the global economy and achieve
the Sustainable Development Goals.
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Cancun, Mexico. The Global Platform for Disaster
Risk Reduction (Global Platform), as recognized by the UN General Assembly, is the main forum at
the global level for strategic advice, coordination, partnership development and review of progress
in the implementation of international instruments on disaster risk reduction. The 2017 Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Cancun, Mexico from 22-26 May, 2017. Nepal
presented a National Position Paper in the Global Platform meeting covering Nepal’s disaster
profile, experiences and lessons learned from the 2015 Earthquake, updates on recovery initiatives,
future challenges in resilience building and a way forward.
Led by MoHA and coined with Global Platform, a National Platform for DRR has been in operation
in Nepal for quite some time. The National Platform plays an important role in bringing government
and non-government actors together to discuss DRR related policy and institutional issues and
make recommendations to help decision making.
The New Urban Agenda 2016: Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) formulated and endorsed
1 This made Nepal the first country in the world (UN, 2017) to publish its SDG country report and represents Nepal’s
commitment and readiness to execute the SDGs.
the National Urban Development Strategy (NUDS) 2017 for the next 15 years. This would adopt
the new urban agenda 2016 on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) declared
in Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016 by 167 participating countries including Nepal. NUDS aims
to addresses critical issues related to urban development sectors such as system, infrastructure,
environment and economy and also indicates the social, economic and cultural vision of urban
areas reflecting the highest values of society. NUDS deals with mechanisms vital for realizing the
desirable condition of the four development sectors, namely investment, finance, governance and
land management. With a vision of balanced and prosperous national urban system, the strategy
provides desirable conditions considering the changes in urban landscape and introduction of
federal system in the country.
Summary
The chapter highlights Nepal’s key achievements during HFA period and future challenges in
working on SFDRR priority areas. It also analyzes other international instruments such as SDGs
and Paris Agreement for their complementarity to SFDRR and how Nepal positions and prepares
for benefiting from those instruments to augment resilience building at all levels. The Sendai
Framework’s primary focus is on risk reduction and resilience, which is a common element of
the 2030 development agenda, the SDGs, and other instruments such as the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda on Financing for Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
The Road to Sendai
55
Chapter 6
Key Challenges and Priorities
Ahead
Enabling Environment
Nepal’s long term vision to make Nepal a safer and resilient nation by 2030 is well reflected in the
draft “National DRR Policy & Strategic Action Plan for Nepal” (2017-2030) which is aligned with four
priority areas of SFDRR: a) understanding disaster risk, b) strengthening disaster risk governance
to manage disaster risk, c) investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience and d) enhancing
disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation
and reconstruction. The Action Plan further identifies baselines and targets under the above four
priority areas for five key sectors, viz., productive, social, infrastructure, environment and natural
resources, and gender and social inclusion.
The Constitution of Nepal has emphasized on building resilience from disasters as key function
of the government and identified concurrent functions of the three-tier government whereas the
local governments are made directly accountable for responding to disasters. The new DRM Act
serves as a tool to translate Nepal’s vision of ‘resilience building’ into reality as per the constitutional
provisions.
Anticipated Challenges
Among others, effective Implementation of the New DRRM Act, understanding risk from a
development perspective and capacity gaps at local level are considered as major challenges
in achieving the SFDRR targets by end of 2030.
 Regulatory provisions needed to bring the new DRRM Act into full force are still to be developed
along with the establishment of new institutional arrangements for DRR at both national and
sub-national levels as envisioned by the Act.
 Isolated actions on resilience building and DRR cannot be sustained in the long run unless
embedded with the prevailing governance system responsible for development planning,
implementation and monitoring. Moreover, work on DRR without predictable financing

commitments from the government sets the realization of national imperatives back.
 Though the newly promulgated Local Government Operation Act and the new DRRM Act
devolve powers to the local governments (7 provincial and 753 municipal) for reducing and
managing disaster risks, they are not yet ready to take that responsibility as they experience
huge capacity gaps under current conditions.
 Integration of climate adaptation and risk reduction approaches, from policy to practice, largely
suffers from very weak coordination between the agencies primarily responsible for dealing
with these issues. Working with the three tiers of government under new federal system on
different frameworks such as SFDRR and SDGs without an agreed institutional convergence
at each level is going to be further challenging.
Key Priority Actions Ahead
Creating an effective institutional set up as provisioned under the new Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Act, 2017. Though MoHA has been working as the nodal government
agency for DRM in Nepal under the mandates of Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982. Nevertheless,
by virtue of its core functions and prime mandates, the ministry is primarily response-centric. Hence
the need for a separate DRR institution was deemed necessary since 2000 when the HFA came into
existence. Now, with the provisions of the new DRRM Act, doors for setting up a new institutional
structure at three-tiers of the government are open. The government needs to act with urgency
towards setting up these institutions as envisioned by the DRRM Act namely NDRRM Council,
Executive Committee, NDRRM Authority, and Provincial, District and Local Disaster Management
Committees.
Capacity building at all levels of the government for disaster risk reduction, preparedness,
and response and recovery. Disaster statistics reveal that number of natural disaster occurrences
in the recent past is on an increase. This trend may further continue for next several years due to
climate change, unplanned development and poor enforcement of land-use policy. To cope with
these challenges and be able to save lives, livelihood and infrastructure from disasters, government
needs to substantially invest in enhancing technical and functional capacities of the DRR institutions.
It is imperative therefore that a resourceful National DRM Training Institute and Resource Centre be
established and charged with the responsibilities of building such capacities at all levels.
Instituting a practice of risk-informed development and mainstreaming DRR and CCA

into sectoral development planning. For a disaster prone country like Nepal, mainstreaming
risk reduction approaches into development is the most effective way of protecting development
The Road to Sendai
57
gains and achieving the SDGs. Past and on-going efforts led by NPC to mainstream DRR into
development planning since 2002, have led to drafting a comprehensive mainstreaming guideline.
Such coordinated efforts need to further continue until mainstreaming work is completely absorbed
by the sectors to be able to make risk-responsive plans and budgets.
Ensuring allocation of adequate funding for DRR and CCA at all levels. Provision of regular
budget from government sources based on actual needs identified through risk assessments is
a must to sustain the DRM actions in the long run. Several ministries, due to lack of capacity
for assessment of actual funding gaps in DRR, prepare budget on ad-hoc basis based on past
experiences, which is inadequate. A systemic approach for budget planning by the sectors based
on objectively identified needs has to be devised.
Empowering province and local governments for effective leadership role in disaster risk
reduction and management. Nepal’s conventional centralized institutional set up for DRM needs
a complete overhaul as per the new DRRM Act and in line with state restructuring and devolution
of power from the federal to provincial and local governments as mandated by the constitution. The
government and the development partners are required to work together to make them capable of
taking their constitutional responsibilities.
Setting up an effective Disaster Information Management System (DIMS) at the central and
province levels as a one-stop information hub. A comprehensive, one-stop functional DIMS
is a pre-requisite for an effective DRM system. The existing DIMS, managed by MoHA through
Nepal DRR Portal and SAHANA System, needs to be upgraded for data consistency and reliability,
automatic updates, capability to generate early warning and forecasts and disseminate risk
information on time. The DIMS needs to be further linked to hazard and hydro-metrological data,
risk profiles and vulnerability information, together with socio-economic and physiographic data to
support analysis of disaster trends and anticipate future risks.
Ensuring Gender Responsive and Disability Friendly Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management. Enabling policies for mainstreaming gender and social inclusion into DRM has not
been able to advance progress on gender-inclusive and disability friendly DRM because of prevailing
structural barriers in the society, lapses in DRM data architecture and inherent methodological
problems of DRR approaches. Except in training and awareness, role of women and disabled
people in decision making and policy discourse has been minimal. The draft National DRR Policy
and Strategic Action Plan (2017-2030) and the new DRRM Act have made mainstreaming GESI
into DRM mandatory and underscored the need for disability friendly. Under the new federal system,
women have got substantive representation in all three tiers of the government. This positive change
has positioned the women to push for eliminating disparity between men and women and drive
gender-responsive DRM at all levels and the opportunity created by this change need to be tapped.
Strengthening national capacity of SAR to the level of INSARAG standards. Nepal needs to
invest on strengthening its SAR capacity upto INSARAG standard. Lessons from 2015 Earthquake
reveal that existing capacity gaps with respect to skills, technologies, institution and resources of the
national security forces to be able to protect the lives of the people trapped in built infrastructures
is relatively low.
Summary
This chapter reiterates Nepal’s long term vision to make Nepal a safer and resilient nation by 2030.
Some of the key steps in that direction are laid in the draft “National DRR Policy & Strategic Action
Plan for Nepal” (2017-2030), aligned to the SFDRR as well as the emphasis of the Constitution of
Nepal on building resilience to disasters. It also takes a look at the challenges, ranging from the
institutional to financial and regulatory to information system management and empowerment of
new local government in realizing that vision. The new DRRM Act and the draft Policy and Action
Plan build strong foundations to work on SFDRR priorities and achieving the SDGs. However, a
huge institutional capacity gap exists at national, sub-national and local levels in implementing
them.
The Road to Sendai
59
References
ADPC, NGI and CECI. (2010). Nepal Hazard Risk Assessment, Kathmandu: Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center (ADPC). Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) and Centre for International Studies and
Cooperation (CECI), Table 3.10.
AMCDRR. (2016). Asia Regional Plan for Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030, Final Document, 5 November 2016. Retrieved from https://www.
amcdrrindia.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FINAL-Asia-Regional-Plan-for-implementation-of-
Sendai-Framework-05-November-2016.pdf on 2 September 2017.
Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London and CARE International. (2005).
Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact in Disasters, version 4.4, retrieved from http://www.
preventionweb.net/files/8267_bhrcgen30apr1.pdf, on 25 August 2017,.
Climate Focus. (2015). The Paris Agreement Summary, Climate Focus Client Brief on the Paris Agreement
III. December 2015, retrieved from http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/20151228%20
COP%2021%20briefing%20FIN.pdf, on 3 September 2017.
Government of Nepal. (2017). National Position Paper of the Government of Nepal. Prepared for the Global
Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction, 22-26, May, 2017. Cancun, Mexico.
IDS-Nepal, PAC and GCAP. (2014). Economic Impact Assessment of Climate Change in Key Sectors in
Nepal. Kathmandu: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE), Government
of Nepal, retrieved from http://www.asiapacificadapt.net/sites/default/files/resource/attach/EIA-
summary_sharing_final-low-resolution.pdf, on 25 august 2017.
Lassa, Jonatan A. and Margareth Sembiring. (2017). Towards Policy Integration of Disaster Risk, Climate
Adaptation, and Development in ASEAN: A Baseline Assessment. NTS Insight, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.
MoHA. (1996). National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal. Kathmandu: Ministry of Home
Affairs, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal.
MoHA. (2013). National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF). Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs
(MoHA), Government of Nepal.
MoHA. (2015). National Progress Report on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2013-
2015). Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), Government of Nepal.
MoHA. (2015). Nepal Disaster Report 2015. Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), Government of
Nepal.
MoHA. (2016). Gorkha Earthquake 2072: Experiences and Learning. Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs
(MoHA), Government of Nepal (text in Nepali).
MoHA. (2017). Disaster Scenario of Nepal, 2015-2016. Unpublished disaster datasets. Kathmandu: Ministry
of Home Affairs (MoHA), Government of Nepal.
MoPE. (2016). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) Communicated to the UNFCCC
Secretariat in February 2016. Kathmandu: Ministry of Population and Environment (MoPE),
Government of Nepal, retrieved from on 2 September 2017.
MoSTE. (2015). Nepal Earthquake 2015: Rapid Environmental Assessment. Kathmandu: Ministry of
Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE), Government of Nepal.
MoSTE. (2014). Economic Impact Assessment of Climate Change in Key Sectors in Nepal. Kathmandu:
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE), Government of Nepal, Nepal,
retrieved from http://www.asiapacificadapt.net/sites/default/files/resource/attach/EIA-summary_
sharing_final-low-resolution.pdf, on 25 August 2017.
Women Group Working on Common Charter of Demand on Humanitarian Response. (2016). National
Women’s Conference on Gender Responsive Disaster Management. Kathmandu Declaration (1-2
March 2016). Kathmandu.
NPC. (2015a). Sustainable Development Goals 2016-2030, National (Preliminary) Report. Kathmandu:
National Planning Commission (NPC), Government of Nepal.
NPC. (2015b). Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Needs Assessment: Key Findings. Vol. A.
Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal.
NPC. (2015c). Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Executive Summary.
Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal.
NPC. (2016). Fourteenth Plan (FY 2073/74 – 2075/76), Kathmandu: National Planning Commission,
Government of Nepal.
NPC. (2017a). National Review of Sustainable Development Goals. Kathmandu: National Planning
Commission (NPC), Government of Nepal.
NPC. (2017b). Nepal’s Sustainable Development Goals: Baseline Report. Kathmandu: National Planning
NPC. (2017c). Nepal Flood 2017: Post Flood Recovery Needs Assessment, Kathmandu: National Planning
NRA. (2016). Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post-Disaster Recovery Framework, 2016-2020. Kathmandu:
National Reconstruction Authority, Government of Nepal, retrieved from http://nra.gov.np/uploads/
docs/wQxngUUy2r160512083450.pdf on 25 August 2017.
NRA. (2017a). Procedures for the Relocation and Rehabilitation of Hazard-prone
Settlements, 2073 (2017), retrieved from http://nra.gov.np/news/details/
AFRq5KxmWC0lgqvzPyyHl06tmBuXusZ83P6xVCM7mp0/, on 6 September 2017.
NRA. (2017b). Rebuilding Nepal. NRA Newsletter. Kathmandu: Nepal Reconstruction Authority,
Government of Nepal, retrieved from http://nra.gov.np/uploads/docs/IkXnBgwRbX170812080426.
pdf, on 7 August 2017.
Pokharel, Jagadish C. (2017). Nepal Post Disaster Reconstruction Experience: Current Status and
Lessons Learned. A paper presented and discussed in SAWTEE Dialogue on Post Disaster
Reconstruction. Kathmandu.
SAARC. (2011). SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters, retrieved from https://www.
scidev.net/filemanager/root/site_assets/sa/SARRND.pdf, on 9 August 2017.
Swiss NGO DRR Platform. (2016). Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience.
Briefing Note, retrieved from http://www.drrplatform.org/images/Swiss_NGO_DRR_Platform_
DRR-CCA_Briefing_Note_March_2016.pdf, on 5 September 2017.
The Road to Sendai
61
UN. (2017). “The Sustainable Development Agenda.” UN Sustainable Development Homepage, retrieved
from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/, on 4 September 2017.
UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs. (1994). Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World.
Geneva: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, UN Department of Humanitarian
Affairs.
UN ORC. (2017). Nepal Flood 2017, Situation Report No. 9 (as of 20 September 2017), Kathmandu: Office
of the Resident Coordinator, retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/
Nepal%20Flood%20Sitrep%2022%20September%202017.pdf on 26 September 2017.
UNDESA. (2015a). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for
Development. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
UNDESA. (2015b). A DESA Briefing Note on the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. New York: United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2015/07/DESA-Briefing-Note-Addis-Action-Agenda.pdf on 2 September
2017.
UNDP Nepal. (2015). An Overview of Ten Year's Progress of Implementation of Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA): 2005-2015 in Nepal. Lalitpur: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
Nepal Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Programme.
UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/
convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf, on 9 May 2017.
UNISDR. (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18-22 January 2005,
Hyogo, Japan. Geneva: ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
UNISDR. (2010). Strengthening Climate Change Adaptation through Disaster Risk Reduction. Briefing Note
3, Geneva: UNISDR.
UNISDR. (2015a). Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the 2030: Agenda for Sustainable
Development. A reflection paper prepared by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva:
UN office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
UNISDR. (2015b). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030. Geneva: United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, retrieved from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_
sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf, on 12 January 2016.
UNISDR. (2017). “Early warning system.” Knowledge Base of PreventionWeb, retrieved from http://www.
preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/v.php?id=478, on 9 September 2017.
UNSD. (2017). SDG Indicators: Revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. United
Nations Statistics Division, rretrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/, on
3 September 2017.
Annex 1: Multi-hazard scenario of Nepal by its socio-economic loss, 1971-2016
Human loss Houses

Number of
Type of disaster No. of family damaged or
incidents Death Missing Injured
affected destroyed*
Fire 8,721 1,605 - 1,619 259,935 86,261
Thunderbolt 1,711 1,620 129 2,684 7,140 963
Landslide 3,246 4,980 174 1,871 558,264 33,617
Wind storm 44 2 - 11 191 215
Flood 3,950 4,445 42 554 3,710,065 216,190
Epidemic 3,452 16,583 - 43,111 512,989 -
Avalanche 2 16 3 7 - -
Snow storm 5 87 7 - - -
Hailstones 131 9 - 24 3,280 155
Earthquake 175 9,771 - 29,142 890,995 982,855
Cold wave 390 515 - 83 2,393 -
Structural collapse 389 404 - 596 2,016 1,793
Total 22,216 40,037 355 79,702 5,947,268 1,322,049
(Average) (494) (890) (8) (1,771) (132,162) (29,379)
Source: MoHA, 2017.
* This includes animal sheds also.
Annex 2: Disbursement of Amount from Central Natural Disaster Relief Fund, 2015 and
2016
Amount disbursed by year (in NRs.) Total

Activity (NRs.)
2015 2016
Fund transferred to DDRCs 10,837,872,745 9,157,939,750 19,995,812,495
Fund transferred to ministries and security forces 1,559,353,091 261,677,542 1,821,030,633
Helicopter costs for rescue and relief operations 30,936,157 128,147,986 159,084,143
Bank commissions 5,366,510 5,537,920 10,904,430
Cash reimbursed for treatment of the injured 2,087,479 73,778 2,161,257
persons
Grants to institutions for assigned activity 450,000 150,000 600,000
Salary and remuneration, etc. 2,82,800 3,17,200 600,000
Total 12,436,348,782 9,553,844,176 21,990,192,958
(56.6 percent) (43.4 percent) (100 percent)
Source: Central Natural Disaster Relief Fund /Disaster Management Division, MoHA, 2017.
The Road to Sendai
63
Annex 3: Expenditure by Government Departments in DRM, 20015 and 2016
Department/Division Expenditure (in NRs.)

2015 2016 Total (NRs.)
Epidemiology and Diseases Control Division 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology 6,800,000 7,100,000 13,900,000
Department of Mines and Geology 4,500,000 29,000,000 33,500,000
Department of Water-Induced Disaster Mgmt. 5,965,500,000 7,663,300,000 13,628,800,000
National Reconstruction Authority 22,475,671,027 49,691,730,792 72,167,401,819
Total 28,453,671,027 57,395,930,792 85,849,601,819
Source: Reporting Government Departments through National Emergency Operation Centre, 2017.
Annex 4: Contribution by UN agencies on DRM Activities, 2015 and 2016
Amount of expenditure (in USD)

Agency Area of support
2015 2016 Total
UNDP Disaster risk reduction and preparedness for 2,615,762 2,726,277
response 18,778,017
Disaster recovery and reconstruction 6,405,713 7,030,265
WHO Health sector response support 1,260,220 929,877
7,073,201
Logistics support to 2015 Earthquake 2,141,115 2,741,989
UNICEF Disaster risk reduction, emergency preparedness 505,625 6,257,422
6,763,047
and response at national and sub-national level
FAO Building resilience for community-based -- 269,000
rehabilitation and mitigation
6,269,000
Emergency assistance for the restoration of 3,000,000 3,000,000
earthquake affected agriculture system
IOM Preparedness and management of open spaces for 39,919 56,825
effective humanitarian response 5,912,631
Support of the earthquake affected population 4,519,470 1296417
UNFPA Disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response 125,963 157,405
5,310,511
Disaster response and recovery 4,011,185 1,015,958
WFP Emergency preparedness, food & nutrition security 1,001,193 3,734,733
Emergency food assistance and logistic, 54,685,533 12199641 71,621,100
telecommunication & coordination support to
earthquake response and Humanitarian air services
Total 80,311,698 41,415,809 121,727,507
Source: Respective UN agencies through CDRMP, 2017.
Annex 5: Contribution of INGOs in DRM, 2015 and 2016
Expenditure
Name of INGO
(2015 and 2016 combined, in NRs.)
Nepal Red Cross Society 2,468,513,456
ActionAid Nepal 676,600,758
ADRA Nepal 443,196,631
CBM International 78,152,501
World Vision International Nepal 60,882,882
Christian Aid 22,315,000
Source: Reports from respective INGOs through DPNet-Nepal, 2017.
The Road to Sendai
65
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAAA The Addis Ababa Action Agenda

AIN Association of International Non Governmental Organization
AMSDRR Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction
APF Armed Police Force
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CNDRC Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee
CNDRC Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee
CRM Climate risk management
CSCDM Citizen Support Committee for Disaster Management
DDC District Development Committee
DDRC District Disaster Relief Committee
DEOC District Emergency Operation Centre
DHM Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
DHS Department of Health Services
DIMS Disaster Information Management System
DLSA district lead support agency
DMG Department of Mines and Geology
DoS Department of Survey
DPNet-Nepal Disaster Preparedness Network Nepal
DRM Disaster risk management
DRR Disaster risk reduction
DRR Portal Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal
DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
DWIDM Department of Water Induced Disaster Management
EDCD Epidemiology and Disease Control Division
EFLG Environment-Friendly Local Governance
FEAT Field Environment Assessment Tool
GDP Gross domestic product
GLOF Glacial Lake Outburst Floods
GoN Government of Nepal
HEOC Health Emergency Operation Centre
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

INSARAG International Search and Rescue Advisory Group
LAPA Local Adaptation Plan of Action
LDC Least Developed Country
MoAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MoE Ministry of Education
MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs
MoSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
MOUD Ministry of Urban Development
NA Nepal Army
NAP National Adaptation Plan
NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
NDR Nepal Disaster Report
NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
NDRRMA National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority
NRRP National Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy
NEOC National Emergency Operation Centre
NGO Non-governmental organization
NP Nepal Police
NPC National Planning Commission
NRA National Reconstruction Authority
NRRC National Risk Reduction Consortium
NSDRM National Strategy on Disaster Risk Management, 2009
PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment
PDRF Post Disaster Response Framework
NRs. Nepali rupees
SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
SOP Standard operation procedure
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
VDC Village Development Committee
WECS Water and Energy Commission
YVCsc Youth Volunteers Coordination Sub-Committee
.
.
With support from

Nepal Disaster Report 2017: The Road To Sendai

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nepal Disaster Report 2017: The Road To Sendai

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nepal Disaster Report 2017: The Road To Sendai

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of Nepal

Ministry of Home Affairs

Copyright © Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal

ISBN Number: 978-9937-0-4217-8

Preferred citation style:

On 24 September 2017, the legislative-parliament unanimously passed a new Disaster Risk

Key Priority Issues for the Next Few Years

7. Ensuring Gender Responsive Disaster Risk Reduction and Management.

8. Strengthening national capacity of SAR to the level of INSARAG standards

Chapter 1 : Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 : Periodic Review of Disaster Statistics................................................... 7

Chapter 3 : The 2015 Earthquake and the Lessons Learned................................ 23

Chapter 4 : The Post-2015 DRM Regulatory Framework in Nepal ...................... 36

Chapter 5 : From HFA to SFDRR: Carving the Road Ahead...................................... 43

Chapter 6 : Key Challenges and Priorities Ahead................................................... 55

Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................................... 67

Box 2.1: Key hazards of the years.................................................................................................. 11

NDR 2017: Purpose and Process

The process of preparing the NDR 2017 includes:

• Understanding loss and damage caused by disasters.

Key Messages from the Earlier NDRs

Learning from HFA and the Thrust of the SFDRR

Table 1.1: Assessing Nepal’s progress on HFA

Disaster Information Management in Nepal

A comprehensive disaster information management system (DIMS) in Nepal is still under

Figure 2.1: Screenshot view of Nepal government Geo-Portal

Figure 2.2 Screenshot view of Sahana software used by NEOC

Institutions Involved in DIMS

Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) is the principal government agency to

Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM) collects information

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), a regional inter-

Box 2.2: The 2017 Monsoon flood

Expenditure on Disaster Risk Management by Select Agencies

Assessing Environmental Impacts of Disasters

Box 2.3: Principles of making recovery and reconstruction environment sensitive

Why is Safeguarding Development Gains So Important?

The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake

ramifications. It posed a challenge to Nepal’s aspiration of upgrading herself to a developing country

Experiences from the Relief Operation

Breakdown and Revival of Communication and Information Networks. For a coordinated

Experiences from the Ongoing Recovery and Reconstruction

Establishment of National Reconstruction Authority. The National Reconstruction Authority

Youth Volunteerism and Building Temporary Class Rooms in Kaski

Spontaneous and self-motivated volunteerism proliferated across the earthquake-hit districts

Box 3.1: Volunteerism

Key Lessons Learned

Box 3.2: Reconstruction related policy and legal frameworks

The Constitution of Nepal, 2015

Table 4.1: Constitutional provisions on DRM responsibility

The new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017

On 24 September 2017, the legislative-parliament unanimously passed a new “Disaster Risk

Other DRM Regulatory Frameworks

Existing legal framework comprises of the following:

• Establishment of Disaster Management Fund, operation and resource mobilization.

Existing DRM Institutions and Mandates:

Ministry of Irrigation through Department of Water Induced Disaster Management is

Other ministries working on DRM include:

DRM Priorities under Current 14th Development Plan

Nepal’s Response to Yokohama Strategy