Inadequate
institutional capacity of the government has been considered as one of the
major limitations for effective management of rescue and relief operation in the
recent Earthquake in Nepal. Owing to the ineffective fund management system,
the development partners have shown reservations put their support in the central
level disaster dedicated account. Formation and establishment of National
Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has been felt necessary for smooth
implementation of recovery and rehabilitation programs. In fact, only establishing
the Authority at central level would not be sufficient, unless legal and dedicated
disaster risk management related organizations are formed, and resources and
authorities are decentralized from central to local level. This can be possible
only when there are elected local government entities to coordinate efforts on
the ground.
Nepal experienced devastating Earthquake on 25th April 2015 and continues to feel several aftershocks
that has resulted in loss of over eight thousand and six hundred
people, and damaged a total of 7,69197 private houses until May 21, 2015 (http://drrportal.gov.np/). To ensure timely availability
of rescue and relief materials, the government has tried mobilizing all
resources through adopting one door policy. In this regard, government has
mobilized central and district level relief management committees. In addition,
it has tried to strengthen the central level disaster funding mechanism. Although
there have been heavy criticism from different quarters, the approach of
mobilizing fund from central treasury has received some success.
Nepal
has to comply with the principles and programs of Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015 as it is party to the convention. As per the convention, Nepal should
keep disaster risk management programs at national and local priority. As
stipulated in the Framework for Action, the government has promulgated Nepal
Disaster Risk Management Strategy (NDRMS) and made provision of forming multi stakeholder
disaster risk management committees at national, regional, district and local
level. The major spirit of the NDRMS is to decentralize resources and
authorities of disaster risk management from central government to local level.
In addition, it emphasizes on the need of partnering with CBOs, NGOs and other
organizations such as Nepal Red Cross Society while carrying out disaster risk
relief and rescue operations at local level. Further, enactment of Local Self
Governance Act (LSGA), 1999 gives responsibility of managing disaster to local government.
To develop disaster resilient society, it is necessary
to mainstream disaster risk criteria into local development planning process. In
order to mainstream disaster preparedness, risk reduction and management as a
priority in the local development planning
and budgeting process, Disaster Risk Management Planning Guidelines at district
and Local Disaster Risk Management Planning (LDRMP) Guidelines at Village Development
Committee and Municipality levels have already been formulated and are being
implemented. As envisioned by the LDRMP, Local Disaster Risk Management
Committees at Municipality and VDCs are to be formed to plan disaster risk
management activities at VDC and Municipality level. Further, according to the
Guidelines, to implement the disaster risk management activities, local CBO,
NGO and private sectors can also be mobilized.
According
to LSGA, 1999 Disaster management fund should be established and mobilized at
district level. In this regard, a dedicated account for disaster risk management
has been provisioned under District Development Fund of DDC. Further, according
to the Act, districts
are required to maintain a fixed deposit of at least NRS, 100,000 for use in
the event of a disaster. VDCs are also required to maintain some disaster risk
management funds at their disposal. Since 2008-2009, municipal bodies have also
been required to establish a relief and recovery fund in accordance with an
amendment to the LSGA 2007.
Despite having these legal provisions and
institutional mechanism, particularly at VDC and Municipality level, these disaster
responsive organizations either were not formed or were found almost
functionless during the time of recent relief and rescue management. Instead,
acknowledging the impartial role, political parties have entrusted Ward Citizen
Forum (WCF), for the management of relief materials at local level. There are
over 4000 WCF across the countries that were formed under MoFALD through Local
Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP) support. I the present context
where there is absence of local elected bodies, WCFs are working as an extended
form of local bodies. In a meeting at
Rasuwa on 5th May 2015 where Prime Minister Mr. Shusil Koirala, UML
Chairperson Mr. K.P Oli and Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
Chairperson Mr. Pushpa Kamal Dahal participated, district political party representatives
applauded effective and neutral role of WCF while distributing relief materials
at settlement level.
To
create local ownership, based on the Post Disaster Need Assessment (PDNA)
reports, it is important to develop early recovery plan under the leadership of
local bodies and in consultation with the Earthquake affected population as
soon as possible. As monsoon season is at the doorsteps of Nepal, it is wise to
get the plan through Ward Citizen Forum and VDC and DDC Councils. It is
pertinent to explore and build on the existing policies and programs that support
in creating and strengthening early recovery institutions at local levels. An
arrangement should be made whereby disaster management communities be engaged in
early recovery planning process and mobilize WCF in monitoring and supervision
of the early recovery activities at the local level.
Instead
of losing more time to create new institution at central level, it is wise to
activate the institutions and funds that are being provisioned by existing laws,
bylaws and guidelines at the local level. Moreover, adopt the approach of
decentralizing disaster management budgets and authorities to local level
institutions. In the mean time, to ensure effective implementation of Early
Recovery Plan, it is wise to hold interim local election as soon as possible
and engage the elected government in disaster risk management. Once elected
government is bestowed with the responsibility of disaster risk management at
local level, then disaster management shall be inclusive, accountable,
participatory, and transparent.
In summary, it is urgent to conduct local election and
decentralize the Disaster risk management responsibilities as well as resources
to dedicated organizations via local government. In the mean time, it is
essential to further strengthen capacity of Ward Citizen Forum and mobilizes
them in managing relief and recovery services. Early recovery plan should be
designed based on the participation of local bodies so that effective implementation
can be ensured. Focusing only on reforming institution at central level would
not solve the problem, instead may trigger frustration as it may linger process
of service delivery.