Navigating the “last mile” in Disaster Risk Management in Nepal

The discussion around the "last mile" in disaster risk management is constantly evolving, with no simple answers. It remains a key global topic focused on how proactively we can save lives and reduce loss and damage. Although significant progress has been made in the last decades, new issues and challenges continue to arise. Among achievements, is the reduction in disaster-related deaths, with average mortality declining by 49%. However, the number of people affected by disasters has increased by 71% between 2005-14 and 2014-23 according to the UNDRR.

Having worked within humanitarian systems and experienced multiple disasters as both a survivor and a humanitarian worker in various countries and contexts, I have noticed significant similarities in the systemic issues that impede our efforts. These challenges not only limit the effectiveness of our humanitarian responses but also hinder our ability to build resilient communities. Addressing these systemic problems is crucial for enhancing both our response strategies and community resilience.

I am sharing the key highlights, which I refer to as “the last mile,” from a recent discussion with fellow humanitarian practitioners. This reflection focuses on lessons learned from recent earthquakes in Nepal, including the November 2023 earthquake in the west and the severe disaster in Solukhumbu in the east in August 2024, caused by a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF). While the topic is complex, I hope these insights will serve as a reference for validating key points and or for considerations in planning and adaptation.

Prevailing context in Nepal

Nepal’s diverse geography, from the Terai plains to the Himalayas, exposes it to various disaster risks. Earthquakes, particularly the devastating 2015 quake, highlight the region’s seismic vulnerability. During the monsoon, intense rainfall causes flooding and mountainous terrain is also prone to landslides triggered by heavy rains. Emerging risks include Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) from melting glaciers and periodic droughts that strain water resources and agriculture. Together, these overlapping hazards pose significant threats to lives, livelihoods, and development, reinforcing the need for robust disaster risk management and resilience-building efforts.

The increasing frequency of disasters, the emergence of new risks and diverse hazards, and the worsening impacts of these crisis are driving the need for smarter and more proactive solutions. In recent years, the world has witnessed the COVID-19 pandemic, massive swarms of desert locusts in East Africa and neighboring regions, as well as the increasing number of alarming and recurrent droughts leading to famine. Likewise, heat waves are becoming severe disasters in various regions worldwide, alongside other crises.

Many of these disasters and impact are exacerbated by weak political readiness, inadequate policies, poor governance, and a lack of commitment and accountability. These factors combined are intensifying food and nutrition insecurity, leading to significant health issues and environmental impacts disproportionately affecting the poor and vulnerable, who face mounting struggles, conflicts, and displacements, further deepening their hardships. Nepal, too, is not exempted from these crises—the difference lies only in the context, intensity, and scale.

Climate risks are becoming more apparent in Nepal, with shifting patterns and intensifying impacts even in previously unaffected areas. Since 2021, the monsoon has started affecting districts like Mustang, Manang, and later Darchula. Post-monsoon floods and landslides have also become more frequent, as seen in 2021 and 2022, just before the paddy harvest, when several western districts, including Surkhet, Achham, Mugu, Jumla, and Kalikot, were severely affected. Kathmandu Valley experienced unprecedented flooding in 2024. These incidents were rare in the past and are becoming more frequent now. Meanwhile, the Terai continues to endure recurring floods.

Nepal has witnessed significant advancements in disaster risk governance, with established structures including the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) in 2017, and enabling laws and policies has displayed policy environment for response. There has been notably progress made on disaster preparedness, risk understanding and addressing urban challenges all while fostering, and shaping enabling policies. Strengthening the multi-hazard early warning system is gaining momentum with efforts focused on enhancing capacity for spatial weather forecasting. Accurate and localized forecasts are crucial in Nepal due to the diverse topography and vulnerability to various climatic events.

Additionally, the global trends are driving the integration of contemporary concepts, with a focus on advancing proactive approaches such as the Anticipatory Action and Shock-Responsive Social Protection (SRSP). These concepts are successfully demonstrated at different local levels and progressing towards incorporated into government policies to enhance overall disaster preparedness and response.

The foundation laid with the inception of Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach in the late 1990s, which involved local communities in preparedness, mitigation, and response efforts has been significantly reinforced with the establishment of the NDRRMA as the institutional home for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal. The understanding and practices on humanitarian principles, standards and accountability were notable advanced during the Maoist insurgency (1996–2006), when international and national humanitarian agencies reached conflict-affected areas to support communities' basic needs. National and local capacities to response to the humanitarian crisis were further enhanced by major disasters, such as the 2008 Koshi floods and the 2015 earthquake.

The thorny issues

Despite the widely progresses made over the years, there is need for extra miles in Nepal disaster preparedness efforts to ensure timely, effective and inclusive response which has been constrained due to several underlying factors. ?Given its multifaceted and complexities it involves various sectors and stakeholders, making it a matter of 'everyone's business.'

The Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and humanitarian sectors have long emphasized the importance of "risk-informed and risk-sensitive development," advocating for pre-disaster investments to reduce impacts and minimize humanitarian costs. However, this concept often turns into a seasonal theme, adopted by only a few local governments or imposed by provincial and federal authorities. In discussions, many examples highlighted that despite decades of support in certain municipalities in the plains of Sudurpaschim and Madesh provinces, the same communities continue to face recurring floods, leading to evacuations and loss of assets. This suggests that solutions must extend beyond community-level management.

The physical vulnerability of houses and critical infrastructure in Nepal is highly susceptible to floods, landslides, and earthquakes. Floods and landslides frequently damage crucial infrastructure, while rapid urbanization and inadequate disaster risk management increase urban risks. Earthquakes pose a significant threat, potentially triggering cascading hazards like landslides, fires, and epidemics. Poor enforcement of building codes and lack of disaster risk communication further amplify these vulnerabilities. In urban areas, extensive concrete surfaces limit water infiltration, exacerbating surface runoff and raising the risk of urban flooding.

Understanding disaster risks is often insufficient in communities, despite being one of the priorities for action in the Sendai Framework. While risk assessment capacities have improved, the challenge lies in ensuring that this information is understood and effectively applied. Translating scientific data into accessible, actionable information is crucial. This requires appropriate, contextualized, and localized risk communication for authorities, as well as practical application in communities.

The humanitarian landscape has made significant progress in disseminating Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) information within 24 hours of disasters. Humanitarian agencies rely heavily on this information to develop response plans after each event. Emergency Operation Centers (EOCs), which serve as focal for disaster information management, are functioning effectively, but the capacities vary.

Despite these advancements, discrepancies in data from different sources, particularly across EOCs at various levels, pose challenges to the reliability and trustworthiness of the information. Significant variations in data have been observed even in recent disasters, sometimes drastically. These challenges are compounded when EOCs lose communication with remote locations, a persistent issue seen during the 2022 floods and the 2023 earthquake.

Delays in conducting damage and needs assessments further hinder the timely development of response plans and the deployment of humanitarian assistance. These delays are due to several factors, including (i) unclear leadership roles in assessments, (ii) lack of harmonization and standardization in assessment tools, and (iii) insufficient institutional capacity to use effective technologies, particularly in remote areas where road access is cut off, limiting mobility.

The emergency response approach in Nepal has long relied on traditional methods, particularly emphasizing in-kind assistance. While in-kind responses hold their significance, the conventional mindset frequently fails to acknowledge the potential and success demonstrated by alternatives and innovative approaches like digital cash and voucher assistance in other contexts. This rigidity limits the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency responses. Notably, during recent earthquake responses in Jajarkot and Bajhang, the preference for in-kind responses overshadowed the potential enhancement of local markets through strengthened market supply chains. This approach not only undermined humanitarian standards but also strained the logistical management capacities of Disaster District Management Committees (DDMC).

Frequently, a lack of accountability at various levels leads to significant misinterpretation of policies, creating opportunities for gatekeepers to divert resources and compromise the quality of humanitarian assistance. The "one door policy," intended to ensure uniformity in relief items and quality, is often misunderstood and perceived as an overflow of relief support at the District Disaster Management Committees (DDMC) instead. Political interference and a limited understanding of humanitarian principles and standards among politicians further reduce accountability and performance. This issue is compounded by gaps in the National Disaster Response Framework (revised 2018), which does not establish clear thresholds for the engagement of different levels of government in response efforts. As a result, the unclear delineation of roles has led to poor accountability in disaster preparedness and response.

The risks and impacts of disasters are unevenly distributed, with the most vulnerable often being those with the least capacity to cope and adapt. Women and the elderly, in particular, face increased challenges during crises, including feelings of being unsafe and higher instances of gender-based violence. Assessments of the impact of the 2015 and 2023 earthquakes on women, the elderly, and people with disabilities reveal a lack of data on the specific risks faced by these groups. This data gap has led to a one-size-fits-all approach in humanitarian assistance, overlooking their unique needs and further exacerbating their vulnerability.

Despite the growing awareness of the need for proactive disaster risk management, such as early action and shock-responsive social protection, the government's adoption of these approaches has been sluggish. While piloting to these approaches has been successfully demonstrated, there remains a significant gap in integrating and scaling these initiatives. The reluctance to fully embrace proactive measures often stems from a limited understanding of their implications on national resources and regulation. This requires more evidence-based advocacy, capacity building, and policy dialogue to build confidence in adopting and implementing such initiatives effectively.

It is also important to address policy fatigue and the burden of preparing numerous laws, policies, and plans. Municipalities and provinces are required to develop various laws (such as the DRRM Act), regulations, plans (like Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan and Local Disaster and Climate Resilience Planning, and Local Adaptation Plans of Action), standards, and guidelines (covering relief standards, volunteer mobilization, DRRM fund mobilization, etc.). Among other points discussed, all practitioners agreed that agencies often respond to the need for improved disaster risk governance by introducing new policies, rather than integrating improvements into existing ones through a comprehensive policy review process.

Furthermore, the quality and effectiveness of current disaster preparedness and response plans are often compromised. Many of these documents are lengthy and not user-friendly, leading to their inadequate use during actual disaster events. As a result, they often end up gathering dust on shelves and are rarely referenced for disaster risk reduction or humanitarian actions.

The last miles

As Nepal continues to strengthen Disaster Risk Management (DRM), addressing the challenges effectively requires a two-pronged approach. Firstly, it is essential to maintain and build upon successful practices already in place. This means consolidating effective policies and capacities at all levels, ensuring that progress is sustained and enhanced over time. Secondly, innovation must be a priority, with a focus on demonstrating and adopting proactive approaches once they are proven and ready for wider implementation.

The three critical factors essential for advancing disaster risk management in Nepal are;

1.??Political Commitment: Securing commitment from parliamentarians and political parties is fundamental. All members must understand and integrate disaster risk management principles into their political platforms, ensuring that these principles guide policy decisions and resource allocations.

2.?Strengthening Local Capacities: Expanding partnerships and investing in local capacities are essential. Engaging local humanitarian agencies, the private sector, and other stakeholders will enhance the management of localized disasters and improve overall resilience.

3.?Inclusive Planning and Response: Incorporating gender and disability-specific vulnerabilities into disaster planning is crucial. Ensuring that the needs of these groups are prioritized will lead to more equitable and effective disaster management.

The effectiveness of the above areas could be supported through a group of actions, some of which are outlined below and require thorough, context-specific analysis. However, these actions are challenging to implement without political commitment and prioritization of investment.

Risk Understanding and Communication: Use advanced tools such as drone-assisted mapping and structural assessments, developed in collaboration with communities, to identify and prioritize intervention areas. Ensure that complex scientific data is translated into simple, accessible formats for all stakeholders. Adopt a people-centric approach, addressing the diverse needs of individuals. Continuously integrate and strengthen information management within disaster information platforms like the BIPAD portal, ensuring they support effective use by local stakeholders and informed decision-making by local and provincial governments. Regularly update these platforms to facilitate seamless communication and coordination among all relevant actors. Additionally, enhance public awareness through effective risk communication strategies, including virtual reality simulations and educational materials.

?Timely Damage and Needs Assessments: Collaboration with youth and volunteers enables the use of advanced technologies for precise damage assessments. A specialized group of individuals ready to be mobilized in any difficult situation should be prepared and trained through tailored courses, such as wilderness training, and develop the necessary skills for using technologies effectively. Decentralized institutional centers need to be established at the provincial level and in high-risk areas to support efficient and sustainable interventions. With trained personnel and advanced tools, teams can be deployed within 48 to 72 hours after a disaster to conduct accurate assessments, enhancing response and recovery efforts.

?Enhancing Early Warning Systems and Early Actions: Enhancing multi-hazard early warning systems and fostering proactive response approaches to ensure they reach end users is crucial. This requires improving the reliability of weather forecasts and building confidence to extend lead times beyond three days, while recognizing the need to start from somewhere rather than waiting for the perfect moment. Investments should focus on developing local weather forecasting capacities, with technical support to strengthen local government capacity. Additionally, consolidating lessons from early action efforts and aligning them with government social protection schemes will increase local government awareness and support in addressing barriers through advocacy and campaigns. Exploring the utilization of government-issued poor household ID cards can also help assess vulnerabilities and expedite the targeting process during response.

Market-Driven Responses: Strengthen market-driven disaster responses through Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA). This involves pre-crisis market assessments to enhance local and provincial government readiness. Focus on cash readiness by ensuring market information availability and developing digital CVA systems. Support market price analysis and localize the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) for effective responsive assistance.

?Strategic Partnerships: Leverage strategic partnerships and resources to enhance preparedness. Collaborate with local humanitarian agencies including the civil societies and the private sector to build capacity to response to the localized disasters. Engage private sector entities in disaster risk management, ensure continuity of critical infrastructure through tailored Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), and support the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) in adapting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for humanitarian assistance.

?Clarification of roles and responsibilities: Disaster response thresholds are essential for defining the roles of different government levels in response, ensuring clear responsibilities, and avoiding confusion. A common understanding of the "one door policy" among humanitarian and government will enhance efficiency. Enhance humanitarian logistics management by operationalizing the government’s digital platform and building the capacity of disaster management committees at both provincial and local levels. Develop and integrate a mandatory learning course into the platform to improve performance in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and humanitarian action for DRR focal points and EOC personnel.

?For me, and probably for many others, the “last mile” is to make disaster risk reduction and humanitarian action a political priority. This will ensure that political leaders take responsibility and invest in building resilience, humanitarian efforts, and their institutionalization. By prioritizing these actions and securing political commitment, Nepal can enhance its disaster risk management, leading to more resilient communities and more effective disaster response systems.