Executive summary
Nepal’s risk profile Nepal is a small landlocked country between India and China. Its population is about 26.6 million with an annual growth rate of 1.40 percent (preliminary findings of 2011 census) and it is one of the poorest countries in the world (currently ranks 157 out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index with a per capita income of less than US$650). Administratively, the country has been divided into seven states since the promulgation of a new constitution in autumn 2015.
Nepal is one of the 20 most disaster-prone countries in the world and has gone through many crises in the last 20 years, including a bloody civil war, and regular disasters of different kinds (floods, landslides, earthquakes, windstorms, hailstorms, fire, glacial lake outburst flood (GLOFs) and avalanches). Out of 200 countries, Nepal ranks 11th and 30th, respectively, with regard to relative vulnerability to earthquakes and floods (UNDP/BCPR, 2004). The physical vulnerability of Nepal is very high, with most buildings and infrastructures built without reference to hazard-resistant technology.
Kathmandu is the most populated district in Nepal. According to the preliminary findings of the Population Census of 2011, Kathmandu was the district with the highest population growth rate in the country over the previous decade with 60.93 percent and a population density of 4408/ km2 . Its population, which was 1.6 million ten years ago, currently stands at 1.74 million.
Kathmandu valley (consisting of three districts; Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur) is one of the fastestgrowing urban agglomerations in South Asia, with a population of around 2.5 million people. It is situated on a major fault line, placing it at significant risk of an intense earthquake. Out of 21 cities worldwide that lie in similar seismic zones, Kathmandu is the most at risk in terms of impact on people. Moreover, rapid, haphazard urban development, including non-compliance with the building code, failure to use qualified engineers or trained masons, encroachment of buildings on open spaces and water table depletion are increasing vulnerability at a significant rate. Kathmandu’s critical infrastructure and essential services are also extremely vulnerable.
According to the Global Earthquake Safety Initiative, Kathmandu is exposed to the greatest earthquake risk per capita among 21 megacities around the world, largely due to building collapse and insufficient preparedness and medical care. The older neighbourhoods which form the historical core of Nepal's cities are particularly vulnerable to earthquake tremors. The poor quality of building and infrastructure construction is the main cause of structural vulnerability. The fact that over 90% of existing structures are non-engineered, and the poor quality control of materials and construction practices mean that the built environment, and especially lifeline facilities, are problematic.
The importance of DRR in the Nepalese context
Due to its position on the slopes of the Himalaya ranges, Nepal has been a priority for the disaster risk reduction community, with several donors (ECHO, DFID, OFDA, etc.) investing massive amounts of resources in the development of risk reduction and management capacities, including through a flagship programme, the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC), bringing together UN agencies and other DRR stakeholders1 to work on earthquake and flood preparedness. Specific activities have been carried out to make the health system resilient to shocks and able to remain operational to deliver health services of all kinds after a high impact disaster. The programmes implemented have involved both rural and urban CBDRR and a number of specific programmes supported by USAID, DIFD and DG ECHO have aimed to ensure that health services will function in the event of a high-impact earthquake both in the Kathmandu Valley and in other parts of the country.
initial response to the 2015 earthquakes: successes and shortcomings
Three key factors shaped the post-earthquake situation. First of all, neither the April nor the May earthquakes were the very high magnitude shock that had been feared. Secondly, although they affected part of Kathmandu Valley, their locations in rural districts meant that the main impact was in low-density rural areas, even though some small towns were also affected. Thirdly, the first tremor fortunately occurred on a Saturday around mid-day, when most people were not at work. If it had taken place on a working day when people were in their offices and children were in their schools, the situation would have been even more tragic.
Reaching the 864,000 people living below the poverty line in hard-to-reach areas, and who had lost their homes, was a priority.
As in many earthquake situations, there were many casualties due to collapsed buildings and infrastructure.
The capacity of the health system to care for the wounded was crucial. Prior to the earthquakes, both development and emergency donors had focused on providing assistance to help strengthen the resilience of the health system at all levels.
With the impending monsoon rains expected to further isolate remote villages, district authorities and humanitarian partners prioritized the distribution of shelter materials in the northern-most Village Development Committees (VDCs).
Moving to recovery and rehabilitation: challenges and innovations
The transition to recovery has been difficult due to the problems caused by the political situation in Nepal.
The constitutional reform towards federalism that was implemented led to heated debate about the number of new entities to be created. This led to tension at the Indian-Nepali border in the Madesh territory in Terai.
As a result it became difficult to import consumer goods, food items and fuel from neighbouring India. This led to a sharp increase in the price of construction materials and transportation, making reconstruction extremely costly for individuals and aid agencies. 8 months after the earthquake, many remote areas were still in ruins or had been rebuilt in a very rudimentary manner as the people living there could not afford to “build back safer”.
Similarly, the political stalemate has held up the creation and staffing of the National Reconstruction Agency.
The political leaders who are expected expected to bring together all national forces and bring about a proper and risk-informed reconstruction, are lost in internal politics. It took them 9 months to vote through the reconstruction bill despite the suffering of the population affected by the monsoon rains and the cold winter.
Despite this, many innovations have been tried in the Nepali context: cash distributions have been used relatively frequently despite the weakness of the banking system in remote rural areas. 3 D printers have been used for the first time to deliver spare parts for water system rehabilitation. The Health Emergency Operation Centre, its network of hospital hubs and its relatively well trained health personnel has been able to provide treatment to most of the patients in the Kathmandu Valley, showing that DRR pays off.
Key lessons learnt and recommendations
Clarify the policies and roles of the line ministries: The new Disaster Management Act needs to be adopted rapidly as it will fill the gap in policy definition, and implementation guidelines preparation and supervision.
All national institutions involved in the national disaster structures will then have a clear action plan and their responsibilities will be clearly spelled out. Revisions should be made regularly to make the policies more practical Improve communication with the affected population: In Nepal, where the political context is very complex and is still affected by the decade of civil war and the complexity of the peace process, aid delivery has been affected a great deal by political factors, there is a need to invest more in communication to establish more active dialogue with the affected populations.
Develop a building code for rural housing: It is essential to adjust the Building Code to rural settings and ensure that all building codes are implemented in urban, peri-urban and rural areas.
Strengthen national search and rescue capacity: The development and strengthening of national rescue and relief capacity should be made a priority. The Nepalese army, police and fire brigades should be trained so that they can act as a middle level rescue capacity. A 7/7 medium type USAR team should be established with a National Disaster training centre.
Improve coordination of international relief support during the early phase: It is important to ensure that incoming actors have a much better understanding of the context and existing needs, as well as the gaps that need to be filled. The list of items to be provided to disaster victims should be decided in advance, in a coordinated manner by all stakeholders. Tax deduction procedures should be designed accordingly. A “one door system for relief provision” should be put in place for relief distribution, using the Disaster Relief Committees under the supervision of local institutions and aid agencies.
Enhance access to remote areas: To assist the population in high altitudes, difficult terrain and bad weather, there should be a sufficient number of helicopters in country. The MOHP/NEOC should also have their own flying capacity. Helipads should be identified and marked at an early stage at the VDC and DCO levels.
Raise the capacity of emergency warehouses and increase prepositioned stocks: National and decentralized pre-positioned stocks should be increased.
Improve the management of internal displacements: It is very important to find ways to improve the management of IDPs with proper movement tracking procedures and registration processes Debris removal and management: Policy decisions will have to be made in relation to all the weakened and dangerous buildings that need to be demolished and the debris that needs to be removed.
Improve communication with the affected population: The call centre established in the Ministry of Information and Communication (call 1234) should be put in place at the NEOC and HEOC and made more widely known amongst the public.
Improve the national capacity for Information and data management: There should be a strong IS system available at the NEOC, and it should be easily accessible by the national disaster centre. A Victim ID Card system should be put in place sons from past events”.