nepal disaster report 2011

Cover Photo: Training on search andrescue techniques using local resources,Kailali district

Photo Courtesy: Mercy Corps

NEPALDISASTER

REPORT 2011

P o l i c i e s , P r a c t i c e s a n d L e s s o n s

Empowered lives.Resilient nations.

Government of NepalMinistry of Home Affairs

Editorial BoardAmod Mani DixitBishal Nath Upreti, Ph.D.Deepak PaudelPitambar AryalPradip Kumar KoiralaShyam Sundar JnavalySurya Narayan Shrestha

ContributorsBhubaneswari ParajuliBijay Krishna UpadhyayGopi Krishna BasyalKhadga Sen OliNisha ShresthaNiva UpretiSuraj ShresthaSuresh Chaudhary

ReviewersMeen B. Poudyal Chhetri, Ph.D.Ramesh Guragain

Design and LayoutChandan Dhoj Rana Magar

Published byMinistry of Home Affairs (MoHA), Government of Nepal; and Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal)with support from United Nations Development Programme Nepal (UNDP), ActionAid Nepal andNational Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET)

This publication is copyright. But any part of this publication may be cited, copied, translated into other languagesor adapted to meet local needs without prior permission from Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and DisasterPreparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal) provided that the source is clearly stated.

The opinions and recommendations expressed or mentioned in this report do not necessarily represent the officialposition and policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs and DPNet-Nepal.

ISBN: 978-99933-710-1-4

To order Nepal Disaster Report 2011, ContactDisaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal)C/O NRCS, Red Cross Road, KalimatiPhone: 977 01 6226613, 977 01 4672165; Fax no: 977 01 4672165Email: [email protected]; Website: http://www.dpnet.org.np

| iii

Fo

rew

ord

| v

Ac

kn

ow

led

ge

me

nt

Nepal Disaster Report 2011

Editorial

NEPAL DISASTER REPORT 2011 Policies, Practices and Lessons tries to becomea compendium of understanding, concepts, experiences and lessons of disaster riskmanagement (DRM) and emergency response planning and capacity building in Nepal. Ittries to reflect the current status of DRM in Nepal including peoples' aspiration and portraysthe efforts made by people and agencies - the government at the central and local levels,the international development partners, the civil society and national private businesses,and the people at the ward, tole (neighborhood) and community levels, to get out of thevicious cycle of poverty and disaster vulnerabilities. Thus, this document is a compilationof facts of disaster occurrence and the efforts made in Nepal in reducing the impact ofthe disasters and in getting prepared for future events. The document looks into the levelof natural hazards the country is exposed to, tries to explore the social, economic, andpolitical meanings of disasters for the country, and tries to make a case on why and howNepal should address the issues of disaster risk management in order to preserve andenhance the well-known resilience of the Nepalese to adversaries and vagaries of nature,safeguard peoples' life and property, and ensure incorporation of disaster risk reduction(DRR) into our developmental efforts.

The message of this document is organized into five chapters.

Chapter 1: Disaster Management in Nepal – An Overview lays out the context byproviding facts on natural hazards in Nepal and their causative factors. It also provides achronology of the development of DRM processes in the country including the government'sinitiatives in creating suitable policy and legal environments for effective DRR and responseplanning starting from the promulgation of the Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 1982. Theseare given in the background of large disasters the country faced due to the 1988 UdaypurEarthquake, 1993 Floods in South-Central Nepal, lessons learned from managing thesedevastating events and the consequent milestone initiatives of the government such as theformulation of the National Building Code and the establishment of sector-specific WorkingGroups on Health, Logistics, Food and Agriculture etc. The establishment of the DisasterPrevention Technical Centre (DPTC), which subsequently metamorphosed into theDepartment of Water-induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), institutionalization of theannual Earthquake Safety Day, formulation and promulgation of the Local Self-GovernanceAct 1999, the Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in Kathmandu Valley (SEDM) byMoHA and JICA in 2000-2002, efforts on Climate Change Impact Adaptation, constitutionof the National Platform on DRR, formulation of the National Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement (NSDRM), 2009 and drafting of the Disaster Risk Management Bill, preparationof Disaster Preparedness and Response Plans for a majority of districts, establishment andcommissioning of the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC), creation of DisasterCluster Groups, participation of Nepal in Global initiatives in DRR including the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) and the International Strategy for DisasterReduction (ISDR), participation in the formulation of Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA)and translation of its meaning to Nepalese context, formulation of National Action Planfor Disaster Management, participation in Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction.

vi |

Ed

ito

ria

l

Experiences gained and lessons learned from such rich engagement of the governmenthave also been described.

Further, this Chapter 1 also reports on the milestone initiatives undertaken by the civilsociety organizations and NGOs and the lessons learned: e.g. establishment of DisasterManagement section in the Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS), establishment of NationalSociety for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET) and implementation of the KathmanduValley Earthquake Risk Management Program (KVERMP), establishment and landmarkcontributions of Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal), Disaster ManagementNetwork Nepal (DiMaNN), National Network of Community Disaster ManagementCommittee (N-NCDMC), Nepal Geological Society (NGS), Nepal Landslide Society(NELS), The Society of Hydrologists and Meteorologists – Nepal (SOHAM-Nepal), NepalGIS Society (NEGISS), Association of International NGOs (AIN), and the Centre forDisaster Studies of the Institute of Engineering (IOE). Collective efforts of networks andagencies under such milestone programs as DIPECHO projects, Developing DRRTerminologies in Nepali language, efforts on sensitizing CA Members on DRR, MainstreamingDRR in Nepal's Education System, Study on Strengthening Legal Preparedness forInternational Disaster Response are also described in terms of their contribution, impacts,challenges and lessons learned.

Chapter 2: Disaster Data Analysis for 2010 provides disaster statistics for Nepal during1971-2010, with detailed description and analysis of disaster data for the year 2010. Itreports that epidemic presents itself as the most lethal hazard with a total toll of 16,521deaths from 3,413 events during the period of past four decades. The second and thirdhazards with huge toll of life are landslide and flood respectively. There were 95 episodesof damaging earthquake in Nepal or its surroundings, with a total toll of 873 lives dead.One has to remember that the medium sized Udaypur Earthquake of 1988 alone wasresponsible for a death toll of 721 persons and collapse / damage to several thousandhouses. Epidemics (130 deaths), and Landslide (67 deaths), Fire (61 deaths), Flood (27deaths) were the most lethal hazards in the year 2010. There were a total of 1,551 disasterevents in the year (almost three events per day) and more than two disaster-related deathsper day. Total monetary losses due to disaster in 2010 amounted almost to 11 billion NepaliRupees or about 1 % of GDP. The year 2010 is witnessed less disaster impact in comparisonto the years 2008, and 2009.

Chapter 3: Impacts and Lessons of Major Past Disasters reports the event details,casualty and other societal impacts, damage to the different sector of economy includingbuilding, infrastructure, and provides an account of emergency response made. The eventsconsidered are the Udaypur Earthquake of 1988, the 1993 Flood of South-Central Nepal,Koshi Flood of 2008, and the 2009 Jajarkot Diarrhea Outbreak. While the events as wellas the impacts have been described in details, the report has tried to distill out the majorlessons and the needs for intervention in national mechanism of response in a strategicway.

Chapter 4: Good Practices of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) provides detailsaccounts of about 13 DRM programs and concepts implemented in Nepal and rightlyconsidered as the "Good Practices". These are: 1) Disaster Preparedness and Response

| vii

Ed

itoria

l

Nepal Disaster Report 2011viii |

Ed

ito

ria

l

Planning for all administrative districts of Nepal, 2) Early Warning System - Forewarnedis forearmed – a flood early warning system in Kailali district, 3) Establishing CommunityBased Early Warning Systems in Nepal – a flood early warning system implemented inChitwan and Nawalparasi districts of Nepal, 4) Promoting Safer Construction Practice-Training the masons in Nepal, 5) Building Code Implementation in Dharan Municipality,6) Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction in Sunsari District, 7) DRR Income GenerationProgram (IGP)/Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Program implemented in Ilam,Jhapa and Panchthar districts, 8) Developing and Implementing Emergency Response Planof Bheri Zonal Hospital, 9) School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP), 10) DisasterPreparedness for Safer Schools (DPSS), 11) Community Based Disaster Risk Managementin Nepal (CBDRM-N) implemented as pilot program in Kathmandu, Lalitpur and in AlapotVDC, 12) Local level Disaster Management Committees – Effective Vehiclesfor reducingdisaster risk (Community Based Disaster Risk Management) in Banke, Makwanpur, Rasuwaand Kathmandu districts, and 13) Pre-Monsoon Workshops: Effective Tool to enhanceNational as well as Local Preparedness Planning for Flood Response. These good practicesare described in terms of their contents, objectives, methodology, beneficiary, achievements,challenges, lessons learned and opportunities for further improvement, and their replicationpotentials. There were many more candidates of good practices, and not all could beaccommodated, and the ones chosen were those that represented different locations,approaches, or contents. It is heartening to note that these are excellent examples that serveas evidence of the feasibilities of DRM in Nepal despite the very adverse economic andpolitical situation.

Chapter 5: Thematic Discussion on Economics of Disasters provides a discourse onthe direct and indirect losses due to disaster events. The losses are presented separately forcasualty, and damage to infrastructure (roads, dams, bridges, and buildings). An analysisof the impact on macroeconomics and on national GDP is also presented together withan analysis of the trend of investments on disasters against losses.

It is to be emphasized here that the works represented in this compendium is the overallachievement made by Nepal with contribution of all agencies, public or private, academicor community-based. The successes as well as the failures are to be shared by all and furtherefforts to meet the identified challenges are to be made by all.

Nepal suffers a loss of several million rupees every year due to damage of infrastructuresby natural hazards. The official data for 1983-2010 shows that over 30 billion rupees werelost due to disasters; this is an average of about a billion Nepali Rupees every year. Andthe report makes a case that the situation should not continue this way because Nepal haslearned and has developed capacity for disaster risk management as demonstrated by thegood practices. The real need is to scale up the successes and to institutionalize themethodologies. That is the real Challenge!

| ix

Ta

ble

of C

on

ten

t

CHAPTER 1 : DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT IN NEPAL – AN OVERVIEW 1The Context 3The development of Disaster Risk Management in Nepal 8

Government Initiatives and Policy Intervention 8Global Initiatives and Nepal's Participation 25Initiatives by Civil Society Organizations 34

Summary 45Timeline: Disaster Risk Management in Nepal 47

CHAPTER 2: DISASTER DATA ANALYSIS FOR 2010 51Disasters in Year 2010 53Economic Loss due to Disasters in year 2010 59Comparison of 2010 with disaster data of past 5 year’s 64Disaster Information for Nepal 65Conclusions 68

CHAPTER 3 : IMPACTS AND LESSONS OF MAJOR PAST DISASTERS 71The 1988 Udaypur Earthquake 73The 1993 Flood of South-Central Nepal 81The Koshi Flood 2008 92The 2009 Jajarkot Diarrhea Outbreak 106

CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICES ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT 115Disaster Preparedness and Response Planning 118Early Warning System - Forewarned is forearmed 120Establishing Community Based Early Warning Systems in Nepal 122Promoting Safer Construction Practice- Training the masons in Nepal 124Building Code Implementation in Dharan Municipality 126Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction 128DRR Income Generation Program (IGP)/Community Based Disaster Risk ReductionProgram 130Developing and Implementing Emergency Response Plan of Bheri Zonal Hospital 132School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP) 134Disaster Preparedness for Safer Schools (DPSS) 136Community Based Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (CBDRM-N) 138Local level Disaster Management Committees – Effective Vehicles for reducingdisaster risk (Community Based Disaster Risk Management) 140Pre-Monsoon Workshops: Effective Tool to Enhance National as well asLocal Preparedness Planning for Flood Response 142

CHAPTER 5: THEMATIC DISCUSSION ON ECONOMICS OF DISASTERS 145Background 147Damage and Losses 147Economic values of damage and losses 155Damage and loss Vs. Investments 159Past studies 161Summary and Conclusions 163

REFERENCES 165

Table of Content


List of Tables

x |

Lis

t o

f Ta

ble

s Table 1.1: Top 10 hazards types and their impact in Nepal 1971-2010 3

Table 1.2: Regional Mean Temperature Trends for the period 1977-94 (°C per year) 16

Table 1.3: IDNDR Day celebration (1991-1999) 27

Table 2.1: Top 10 hazards types and their impact in Nepal 1971-2010 53

Table 2.2: Loss of human lives and property due to disasters in 2010, Nepal 54

Table 2.3: Disaster effects on Human Population, 2010 56

Table 2.4: No. of building damaged and destroyed by different type of disasters inNepal, 2010 58

Table 2.5: Loss due to all types of disasters compared to gross domestic products 61

Table 2.6: Events catagories as per the Hazard Type 67

Table 2.7: Economic losses due to disasters, 2010 69

Table 3.1: Losses due to infrastructure damage/failure 82

Table 3.2: Infrastructure Damage in July 1993 in Nepal 83

Table 3.3: Estimated loss of lives and property from landslides and floods of19-22 July 1993 84

Table 3.4: Damage due to Flood and Landslide in July 1993 85

Table 3.5 : Families affected and the number of housing constructed by Tzu ChiFoundation 91

Table 3.6: Number of households and population figures for the affected VDCs 92

Table 3.7: Number of deaths and injuries 92

Table 3.8: Damage to properties 93

Table 3.9: Extent of damage to cultivated land 93

Table 3.10: Loss of household goods in number 93

Table 3.11: Damage of roads and trails 93

Table 3.12: Loss of crops in 2008 Koshi flood 94

Table 3.13: Loss of fruits in 2008 Koshi flood 94

Table 3.14: Losses of vegetables in 2008 Koshi flood 94

Table 3.15: Number of livestock lost in 2008 Koshi flood 94

Table 3.16: Estimated monetary loss in 2008 Koshi flood 95

Table 3.17: Number of days when the flow of goods and services were closed 96

Table 3.18: Details of Compensation after 2008 Koshi flood 101

Table 3.19: Details of the cumulative number of treated and deaths since 1st May2009 to 23, August 2009 107

List of Boxes

| xi

Lis

t of T

ab

les

Box 1.1: Measuring earthquakes 5Box 1.2 : Main Recommendations of SEDM 13Box 1.3: Tokyo Declaration for International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction 25Box 1.4: Excerpts from remarks during first IDNDR day celebration in Nepal 26Box 1.5: Resolution of 1995 IDNDR Day 28Box 1.6: Excerpts from remarks during first IDNDR day celebration in Nepal 28Box 1.7: Components of National Action Plan 1996 29Box 1.8: Earthquake scenario of Kathmandu Valley 36Box 1.9: List of DPNet Nepal Member Organizations 38Box 1.10: Disaster related Keywords interpreted, developed and adapted by

Dhulikhel Workshop 2008 42Box 1.11: Addressing Disaster in Periodic Plans 44Box 1.12: Findings and Recommendations of IDRL Study 46Box 2.1: Major Disasters in the Year 2010 54Box 2.2: Extensive and Intensive Risk 63Box 3.1: Post 1988 Diary 80Box 3.2: July 1993 Floods and Landslides of South Central Nepal 84Box 3.3: Secondary Effects of Koshi Flood 96Box 3.4: Prompt activation of DDRC & CNDRC 97Box 3.5: Quick Initial Rescue and Relief 98Box 3.6: Reconstruction and Rehabilitation after 2008 Koshi flood 103

Table 5.1: Loss of lives due to various disasters in Nepal from 1983 to 2010 148

Table 5.2: Human death due to disasters during 1971-2010 149

Table 5.3: Summary of effects on human lives due to disasters during 1971-2010 150

Table 5.4: Summary of Effects of Human Lives due to Disasters during 1983-2010 151

Table 5.5: Damage of properties and Estimated Economic Loss (Value in 2010) due toDisasters during 1983 – 2010 152

Table 5.6: Damage of Private and Public Properties due to disasters during 1971-2010 153

Table 5.7: Year-wise Damage of Private and Public Properties due to disastersduring 1971-2010 154

Table 5.8: Year-wise economic value of damages (in Million NRs.) 156

Table 5.9: Major Hazard-wise Economic Value of Damages (in Million NRs.) 158

Table 5.10: Ex-ante and ex-post investments in Nepal during 1998-2008(in million US Dollars) 160

Table 5.11: Total disaster losses and ex-ante and ex-post investments indisasters during (1998-2008) in Million USD 161

Table 5.12: Infrastructure damage in July 1993 in Nepal 162

Lis

t of B

ox

es


List of Figures

xii |

Lis

t o

f F

igu

res

Figure 1.1 : News coverage on Building Code Implementation from“The Rising Nepal” 10

Figure 1.2: Then Prime Minister, Home Minister and distinguished guests observingmodels on earthquake resistant building construction atEarthquake Safety Day 2010, Lalitpur 11

Figure 1.3: Comparison between temperatures in Kathmandu and global andall-Nepal temperature 16

Figure 1.4: All Nepal temperature trend (1975-2006) 16Figure 1.5: Effect of global warming is more acutely manifested in higher altitude

(Chhuksang, Mustang) 16Figure 1.6: Constituent Assembly Members at the sensitization workshop 43Figure 2.1: Trend of hazard occurrence in past decades in Nepal, 1971-2010 55Figure 2.2: Seasonality of occurrences of selected hazard types by month 57Figure 2.3: Effect of natural disasters in building damage by hazard types 2010 59Figure 2.4: Trend of reported loss value in DesInventar Database for Nepal 1971-2010,

by decades 62Figure 2.5: Major peaks of impact in terms of deaths due to intensive disasters in 2010 62Figure 2.6: Loss of human lives by districts during 2009 (left) and 2010 (right) 64Figure 2.7: Loss of human lives due to major disaster events in Nepal in

year 2009 and 2010 64Figure 2.8: Annual time series distribution of disaster occurrence and human deaths,

2005-2010 65Figure 3.1: Earthquake intensity map 73Figure 3.2: Sectorwise loss 73Figure 3.3: Building damage in Naya Bazar of Dharan 74Figure 3.4: The damage of road in Koshi Highway 74Figure 3.5: During the relief distribution 76Figure 3.6: Area affected by landslides and flood disasters during high intensity

rainfall of July 19 & 20, 1993 81Figure 3.7: Floor plan of a typical duplex unit providing basic housing for two

families in Mangalpur 88Figure 3.8: Stone Masonry in Foundation 88Figure 3.9: Weakness in building construction 88Figure 3.10: Brick building under construction 88Figure 3.11: Pre Cast RCC lintel above the opening 89Figure 3.12: Improper bonding of masonry units 89Figure 3.13: Detached toilet blocks for the houses 89Figure 3.14: Koshi Flood Map 92Figure 3.15: People seeking for temporary shelter after 2008 Koshi flood 97Figure 3.16: Shelter, storm and struggle for life after Koshi flood 2008 99Figure 3.17: Distribution of compensation after 2008 Koshi flood 100

| xiii

Lis

t of F

igu

res

Figure 3.18: Diarrhorea outbreak in mid west and far west region 106Figure 3.19: Number of cases and deaths by districts 107Figure 3.20: Trends of diarrheal cases in mid and far western region of Nepal 108Figure 3.21: Treatment of diarrhea patient Khagenkot Health Post, Jajarkot 109Figure 3.22: IEC materials to raise awareness in WASH/UNICEF 110Figure 4.1: Street Drama on Disaster Awareness performed in Kathmandu October 2012 117Figure 4.2: Guidance note on DPRP 119Figure 4.3: Water –level-gauge installed at the river bank 121Figure 4.4: Communicating using an upstream recorder 121Figure 4.5: One of the Installed tower, Local resident informing on the gauge reading 123Figure 4.6: Local resident practicing on the siren 123Figure 4.7: Practical demonstration in the field 125Figure 4.8: Participants involved in group work 125Figure 4.9: Concerned Stakeholders jointly announcing the building code implementation 127Figure 4.10: Constructing Sill and Lintel bands has become popular in Dharan 127Figure: 4.11: Practice on the flood response technique 129Figure 4.12: Students permforming duck, cover & hold on 129Figure 4.13: Kitchen Gardening in Panchthar in DRR implemented communities 131Figure 4.14: Murdirmaya Tumbapo and her husband with their buffalos, which they were

able to buy with a helping hand from the DRR program 131Figure 4.15: Spatial Plan for Emergency Response Scenario -1 132Figure 4.16: Nonstructural Mitigation work at the hospital 133Figure 4.17: Students observing the retrofitting work in one of the selected school 134Figure 4.18: Students participating in the earthquake drill program 135Figure 4.19: School Emergency Evacuation Plan Painted on walls of school building 137Figure 4.20: Students demonstrating and practicing Duck Cover And hold during School

Earthquake Drill 137Figure 4.21: Communities attending orientation lecture on Earthquake safety 139Figure 4.22: Participants performing practical exercise during the LSAR training 139Figure 4.23: DMC Meeting 141Figure 4.24: DMC member orienting the community 141Figure 4.25: Distiguished guests at the dias during the workshop 143Figure 4.26: Participant of the workshop 143Figure 5.1: Percentage of loss of life due to various types of disasters in Nepal

during 1983-2010 149Figure 5.2: Loss of human lives in Nepal due to disasters 1983-2010, as reported in two

databases (MoHA and DesInventar) 151Figure 5.3: Proportion of economic losses due to different hazards in the total

economic losses during 1971-2010 155Figure 5.4: Trend of ex-ante and ex-post investments in Nepal 160Figure 5.5: Total Disaster Losses and Ex ante and ExPost Investments in disasters

during (1998-2008) in millionUSD 161


Acronym

xiv |

AAN Action-Aid NepalADB Asian Development BankADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness CenterADRA Adventist Development and Relief

AgencyAEPC Alternative Energy Promotion CentreAINTDGM Association of INGOs in Nepal Task

Group on Disaster ManagementAMCDRR Asian Ministerial Conference on

Disaster Risk ReductionAPF Armed Police ForceAPN Asia-Pacific Network

ARC American Red CrossAUDMP Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation

ProgramAWD Acute Watery DiarrheaBDMT Basic Disaster Management TrainingBZH Bheri Zonal HospitalCA Constituent AssemblyCBDRMN Community Based Disaster Risk

Management in NepalCBO Community Based OrganizationCBS Central Bureau of StatisticsCCDRR Child-Centered Disaster Risk

Reduction

CDO Chief District OfficerCDRF Central Disaster Relief FundCDS Center for Disaster StudiesCEAARRC Central Earthquake Affected Areas

Reconstruction and RehabilitationCommittee

CECOD Center for Community DevelopmentCNDRC Central Natural Disaster Relief

CommitteeCRED Centre for Research on the

Epidemiology of DisastersDAO District Administration OfficeDCWB District Child Welfare BoardDDC District Development CommitteeDDRC District Disaster Relief CommitteeDEO District Education OfficeDEPROSC-Nepal Development Project Service

Center- Nepal

DERMP Dharan Earthquake RiskManagement Program

DHM Department of Hydrology andMeteorology

DHS Department of Health ServicesDHWG Disaster Health Working GroupDiMANN Disaster Management Network

NepalDIMS Disaster Inventory/Information

Management SystemDIS Digital Information SystemDLSA District Lead Support AgencyDMC Disaster Management CommitteeDMG Department of Mines and GeologyDMSP Disaster Mitigation Support ProgramDOI Department of IrrigationDOR Department of RoadsDPC Disaster Preparedness CommitteeDPNet-Nepal Disaster Preparedness Network-

NepalDPRP Disaster Preparedness and Response

PlanDPSS Disaster Preparedness for Safer

SchoolsDPTC Disaster Prevention Technical CenterDPHO District Public Health OfficeDRM Disaster Risk ManagementDRR Disaster Risk ReductionDRRSP Disaster Risk Reduction through

Schools ProjectDSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and

Watershed ManagementDUDBC Department of Urban Development

and Building ConstructionDWIDP Department of Water Induced

Disaster PreventionEAARRP Earthquake Affected Areas

Reconstruction and RehabilitationProject

ECHO European Commission’sHumanitarian Aid Department

EDCD Epidemiology and Disease ControlDivision

EPC Environment Protection CouncilESD Earthquake Safety DayEU European Union

Ac

ron

ym

EWS Early Warning SystemFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFCHV Female Community Health VolunteerFMIS Farmer Managed Irrigation SystemGAR Global Assessment ReportGDP Gross Domestic ProductionGHI Geo-Hazards InternationalGIS Geographic Information SystemGLOFs Glacial Lake Outburst FloodsGPS Global Positioning SystemHFA Hyogo Framework for ActionHI Handicap InternationalHICS Hospital Incident Command SystemHKH Hindu Kush HimalayaHRDC Hospital and Rehabilitation Center for

the Disabled ChildrenHVCA Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity

AssessmentIASC Inter Agency Standing CommitteeICAO International Civil Aviation

OrganizationICIMOD International Centre for Integrated

Mountain DevelopmentIATF/DR Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster

ReductionIDA International Development

AssociationIDNDR International Decade for Natural

Disaster ReductionIDP Internally Displaced PersonIFRC International Federation of Red Cross

and Red Crescent SocietiesINF International Nepal FellowshipINGO International Non-Governmental

OrganizationINSARAG International Search and Rescue

Advisory GroupIOE Institute of EngineeringIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

ChangeIRA Initial Rapid AssessmentISDR International Strategy for Disaster

ReductionITDG Intermediate Technology

Development GroupJICA Japan International Cooperation

AgencyJYRC Junior Youth Red Cross

KDRRI Kailali Disaster Risk ReductionInitiatives

KMC Kathmandu Metropolitan CityKVERMP Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk

Management ProjectLARED Latin American Research Education

and DevelopmentLSAR Light Search and RescueLSGA Local Self Governance ActLSMC Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan CityLWF Lutheran World FederationLWR Lutheran World ReliefMCH Maternal Child HealthMCPM Minimum Conditions and

Performance MeasurementsMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMEDEP Micro-Enterprise Development

ProgramMHPP Ministry of Housing and Physical

PlanningMMI Modified Mercalli Intensity ScaleMoAC Ministry of Agriculture and

CooperativesMoFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil

ConservationMoHA Ministry of Home AffairsMoLD Ministry of Local DevelopmentMoST Ministry of Science and TechnologyMoWR Ministry of Water ResourcesMRT Mandatory Rule of ThumbNA Nepalese ArmyNAPA National Adaptation Program of

ActionNAST Nepal Academy of Science and

TechnologyNBC Nepal Building CodeNCDM Nepal Center for Disaster

ManagementNCDM National Council for Disaster

ManagementNCRA Natural Calamity (Relief) Act-1982NDC National Development CouncilNDMA National Disaster Management

AuthorityNDMF Natural Disaster Management Forum

NepalNDMF Natural Disaster Management Form

Nepal

Ac

ron

ym

| xv


NDMP National Disaster Management PolicyNEA Nepal Electricity AuthorityNEA Nepal Engineers’ AssociationNEGIS Nepal GIS SocietyNELS Nepal Landslide SocietyNEOC National Emergency Operations

CenterNEPAP National Environmental Policy and

Action PlanNEWAH Nepal Water for HealthNFHP Nepal Family Health ProgrammeNFI Non Food ItemNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNGS Nepal Geological SocietyNHEICC National Health Education

Information and CommunicationCenter

NP Nepal PoliceNPC National Planning CommissionNPDRR National Platform for Disaster Risk

ReductionNNCDMC National Network of Community

Disaster Management CommitteeNRCS Nepal Red Cross SocietyNRRC Nepal Risk Reduction ConsortiumNSDRM National Strategy for Disaster Risk

ManagementNSET National Society for Earthquake

Technology - NepalOECD Organization for Economic Co-

operation and DevelopmentOFDA Office of the U.S. Foreign Disaster

AssistanceORS Oral Rehydration SolutionPVA Participatory Vulnerability

AssessmentPVCA Participatory Vulnerability Capacity

AssessmentSAR Search and RescueSBDPTOT School Based Disaster Preparedness

Training of TrainersSDC Swiss Development CoopertionSEDM Study on Earthquake Disaster

Mitigation for Kathmandu ValleySESC School Earthquake Safety CommitteeSESP School Earthquake Safety ProgramSFRALSO Saptakoshi Flood Rehabilitation

Agriculture and Livestock ServiceOffice

SOHAM Society of Hydrologists andMeteorologists

SOP Standard Operating ProcedureSMC School Management CommitteeTU Tribhuvan UniversityUN United NationsUNCHS United Nations Center for Human

SettlementsUNCRD United Nations Center for Regional

DevelopmentUNDMS United Nations Disaster Management

SecretariatUNDMT United Nations Disaster Management

TeamUNDP United Nations Development

ProgrammeUNDRO United Nations Disaster Relief

OrganizationUNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific

and Cultural OrganizationUNFCCC United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate ChangeUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNISDR United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster ReductionUNOCHA United Nations Office for the

Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsUSAID United States Agency for

International DevelopmentUSAID-NFRP USAID- Nepal Flood Recovery

ProgramVDC Village Development CommitteeVFL Views from the FrontlineWCDR World Conference on Disaster

ReductionWECS Water and Energy Commission

SecretariatWFP World Food ProgramWHO World Health OrganizationWMO World Meteorological OrganizationWOREC Womens Rehabilitation CenterWSSI World Seismic Safety InitiativeWSSDO Water Supply and Sanitation Division

OfficeWVI World Vision InternationalWWF World Wildlife FundYARCN Youth Awareness Raising Center

Nepal

xvi |

Ac

ron

ym

CHAPTER 1 : DISASTER RISKMANAGEMENT IN NEPAL

– AN OVERVIEW

| 1

2 |Boat ferrying food and goods across what used to be normal dry land but then flooded, Koshi Flood

Photo Courtesy: www.everestunsencored.org

Ch

ap

ter 1

The ContextNepal is exposed to several types of naturalas well as human-induced hazards. A widevariety of physiographical, geological,ecological and hydro-meteorological factorscontribute to the high levels of hazards

faced; while demographic factors such asrapid population growth, slow economicdevelopment and the resulting rampantpoverty, widespread unawareness on thepossibilities and means of mitigation, limitedfirm political and social commitment etc.also make the country extremely prone todisasters. The major types of natural hazardsof concern and their impact are listed inTable 1.1 and major hazards are describedbriefly.

FloodFlood is a recurrent problem in the Tarai aswell as in the mountain regions.

Most part of Tarai faces problem of floods

Chapter 1

Disaster Risk Management in Nepal – An Overview

| 3

during the monsoon periods (June-August).Most of the flood disasters take place alongthe banks of the larger rivers such as Mechi,Kankai, Koshi, Kamala, Bagmati, East Rapti,Narayani (Gandak), West Rapti, Babai,

Karnali and Mahakali rivers. Riversoriginating from the Siwaliks are mostly ofephemeral nature, being wild during themonsoon season, and they also pose highflood hazards to the Tarai. Extensiveinundation in the Tarai plain is due tofrequent change in the river courses, bankerosion and erosion in the river meanders.

In the mountainous regions, rivers are inspates during the monsoon season. Bankundercutting, inundation of the flood plainsare the results. But more disastrous are thefloods in the high gradient tributary streamsdue to cloud bursts or high intensity rainfallconcentrated usually in a small catchment.Such flash floods cause triggering of

S.N.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Hazard Type

Epidemics

Landslide

Flood

Fire

Thunderstorm

Accident

Earthquake

Cold wave

Structural Collapse

Boat Capsize

Other events

Total

Number ofrecords/events

3413

2705

3377

4936

1034

1000

95

320

389

135

2651

20055

Number ofdeaths

16521

4327

3899

1293

986

969

873

442

404

269

999

30982

Number ofinjury

43076

1446

461

1097

1810

359

6840

83

596

124

1335

57227

Affectedpopulation

512967

555607

3665104

252074

6668

2137

4539

2393

2016

410

928331

5932246

Table 1.1: Top 10 hazards types and their impact in Nepal 1971-2010

Source : DesInventar, 2011


Ch

ap

ter

1

landslide, deep scouring of the stream bedand the side slopes and they rapidly developinto debris flows capable of transportingseveral cubic meter sized boulders.

The problem of flooding in the Tarai is alsohigh due to the high bed load, in additionto the suspended load, carried by the rivers.In the plains, almost all the rivers arewidening and cutting their banks each year.

Landslide and Debris FlowThe causes of landslides in Nepal can beassigned to a complex interaction of severalfactors which are natural as well as humanactivity related. High relief, concentratedmonsoon rainfall, withdraw of underlyingas well as lateral supports by toe cutting andbank erosion, presence of weaker rocks,active neotectonic movements and a complexgeological history, which has resulted invery intense faulting, folding and fracturationof the rocks, are the natural factors causinglandslides in Nepal. But human activitiesare also responsible for the very high extent,and they add to the density of landslides inthe country. Overgrazing of protectivegrassy cover, mass felling of trees leadingto an unprecedented deforestation,disturbance of the hill slopes by road/canalconstruction, non consideration of thegeologic conditions in the correspondinglocat ion, planning or designs ofinfrastructures etc. are some of the importantanthropogenic factors leading to landslides.

There are other social causes for the greaterextent of damage. Unawareness on the partof the population and the decision makersmay be cited as the most important of allthe anthropogenic activity related indirectcauses of landslides.

All these factors set the stage for the landslideto take place. But the stability balance isusually tipped by one of the two triggers,namely; a) rainfall/cloud burst, and b)earthquake, excavation and transitorystresses.

High intensity rainfalls, which occurfrequently during the monsoon season arefound to have triggered many highlydestructive debris slides and debris flowalong the high gradient hill slope channels.

Majority of the landslides in Nepal occurin the late monsoon periods. Incessantrainfall during the period, when theantecedent moisture content of the landsurface reaches a certain critical stage, isfound to be accompanied by landslides.

Earthquake is another important landslidetriggerer. Apart from developing fissuresboth along and parallel to the hill slopes,and thus generating the potentials for debrisslides, the earthquakes are found to triggera variety of landslide types including hugerock slide, rock fall and slumps. Some ofthe very big landslides have been reportedto have been initiated by the Nepal-Biharearthquake of 1934 AD.

Debris flows are frequent in the mountainousparts of the country. They are caused bydeep scouring of the stream bed and sideslope by a high gradient stream. Materialsare the deeply weathered rock and colluviumin the middle mountains and the thick glacialdeposits in the high mountains. Dammingof rivers and tributaries due to landslidesand debris and subsequent sudden breachingof the dam is another important phenomenafor the generation of debris flows. In thehigher mountains, debris flows are frequentlygenerated by Glacial Lakes Outburst Floods(GLOFs) due to the breaching of themoraines or glacier ice damming the lakes.

The debris flow travels usually to greaterdistances along the river valley and destroyterraces, infrastructures and settlementsalong its course. Destruction of bridges,hydropower fac i l i t i e s and otherinfrastructures along the Sunkoshi and BhoteKoshi rivers in 1967 and 1996 were due todebris flows.

4 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

EarthquakeThe entire territory of Nepal lies in highseismic hazard zone. The country's highseismicity is related to the movement oftectonic plates along the Himalayas that hascaused several active faults. A total of 92active faults have been mapped throughoutthe country by the Seismic Hazard Mappingand Risk Assessment for Nepal carried outas part of the Building Code DevelopmentProject – 1992-1994 (MHPP, 2994). Earth-quakes of various magnitudes occur almostevery year and have caused heavy losses oflives.The entire country falls in a high earthquakeintensity belt: almost the whole of Nepalfalls in high intensity scale of MMI IX andX for the generally accepted recurrenceperiod. The seismic zoning map of Nepal,which depicts the primary (shaking hazard),divides the country into three zoneselongated in northwest-southeast direction;the middle part of the country is slightlyhigher than the northern and the southernparts.

The country has a long history of destructiveearthquakes. In this century alone, over11,000 people have lost their lives in fourmajor earthquakes. A 1934 AD earthquakeproduced strong shaking in KathmanduValley, and destroyed 20 percent anddamaged 40 percent of the valley’s buildingstock (NSET, 1999). In Kathmandu itself,one quarter of all homes was destroyed.Many of the temples in Bhaktapur weredestroyed as well. This earthquake was notan isolated event. Three earthquakes ofsimilar size occurred in Kathmandu Valleyin the 19th Century: in 1810, 1833, and 1866AD. The most recent earthquake that badlyhit Nepal was the earthquake of 1988 whichwas a moderate size earthquake (Magnitude6.5) affecting mostly the eastern part ofNepal. 721 people lost their lives in thisearthquake.Based on the data available from theDepartment of Mines and Geology, CBS(1998) concludes that earthquakes of morethan or equal to 5.0 on the Richter scalehave occurred at least once every year in

| 5

The Richter scale

The Richter scale or the local magnitude(ML) scale assigns a single number toquantify the amount of seismic energyreleased by an earthquake. The Richtermagnitude of an earthquake is determinedfrom the logarithm of the amplitude ofwaves recorded by seismographs(adjustments are included to compensatefor the variation in the distance betweenthe various seismographs and theepicenter). Because of the logarithmicbasis of the scale, an increase by a wholenumber in magnitude represents a 10-foldincrease in amplitude; in terms of energyan increase by a whole number,corresponds to an increase of about 32times the amount of energy released.

Box 1.1: Measuring earthquakesThe Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)Scale

The MMI scale is used for measuring theintensity of earthquake. It quantifies theeffects of an earthquake on the earth'ssurface, human beings, object of natureand man-made structures on a scale ofMMI I through MMI XII. MMI I denotesthe lowest intensity, and a shaking of MMIXII can cause total destruction. Thestrongest shaking usually occurs near theepicenter (epi-central intensity) and theintensity of shaking decreases with theincrease of distance from the epicenter.This decrease is called "attenuation” andthe mathematical expression of thedecrease in the level of shaking is called“Attenuation Relationship”. The scale iscommonly abbreviated as MMI.


Ch

ap

ter

1

6 |

Nepal since 1987, with the exception of1989 and 1992 when no such events wererecorded. The current disaster database ofNepal shows that there were 22 earthquakeswith magnitudes ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 onthe Richter scale throughout the countryfor last 37 years period (1971-2007). About34,000 buildings were destroyed and 55,000were damaged (DesInventar, 2007) duringthis period due to earthquakes.Many studies have been carried out in thepast to evaluate the earthquake risk ofKathmandu Valley. The most significantamong such studies are: the Study onEarthquake Disaster Mitigation forKathmandu Valley conducted in 2002 byMinistry of Home Affairs (MoHA) withsupport from Japan InternationalCoopertation Agency (JICA); and theearthquake risk assessment and scenariodevelopment in 1997 by Kathmandu ValleyEarthquake Risk Management Project(KVERMP) implemented by the NationalSociety for Earthquake Technology – Nepal(NSET). A simple loss estimation carriedout during the KVERMP suggested that incase of a reoccurrence of similar shakingto that of 1934 in Kathmandu Valley wouldresult in the following consequences: death:40,000, injury: 95,000, homeless population:600,000 – 900,000 , and building damage:60% (NSET, 1999). Recent studies haveshown that the situation is not much differentin other cities also.

EpidemicEpidemics are in fact the number one killerin Nepal, with an average of 410 deaths peryear. During 1983-2010, 22,306 people losttheir lives (MoHA,2004;DWIDP, 2010).Fifty-two per cent of those deaths werecaused by epidemics. The pattern is notmuch changed during later time as well.

Lack of treated drinking water supply andpoor hygiene conditions, not only in therural areas but also in the crowded,

unplanned urban settlements are the causefor the potentially high risk from epidemic.gastro-enteritis, cholera, encephalitis,meningitis, dysentery and diarrhea accountfor more than 50% of the total deaths dueto epidemics. Break out of epidemics aftera major disaster such as flood and earthquakeetc. is quite frequent.

Epidemics of contagious diseases have twopeaks: during the months of May and June,before the rainy season begins and in August,the height of the monsoon. Unsafe drinkingwater and poor sanitation are the main causesof water-borne diseases in Nepal. Water-borne diseases continue to take lives inNepal. In fact, over 80 per cent of all illnessis attributed to inadequate access to cleanwater supplies, poor sanitation and poorhygiene practices.

FireForest fires are prevalent in the Tarai forestsas well as in the forests belonging to theSiwaliks and middle mountains. Althoughdamages by such fires have been severe interms of environmental degradation, thesehave not been followed as disasters tocommunities.On the other hand, disasters due to fires insettlements are common in the Tarai wheremost of the houses are thatched roof andclustered and there is little fire safetymeasures implemented. Fires are sporadicalso in the mountain settlements. Most firedisasters occur during summer (April - July)when temperatures are high and strongwinds occur. The large number of small fireincidences has a cumulative effect throughoutthe country

DroughtA severe drought hit Nepal during 1981-1982 causing heavy damage to crops leadingto a decline in Gross Domestic Product(GDP) by about 1.4%. Failure of monsoon

Ch

ap

ter 1

rains or its late arrival causes partial droughtaffecting major crops in different parts ofthe country. Uneven distribution of themonsoon rains, with several parts of thecountry not receiving the required rains inthe required time for the major crop is arecurrent phenomenon. Since a large partof the country still depends on rainfall forcultivation, such phenomena affect theagriculture production of the country veryadversely.

StormStorms (line-squalls) with heavy rainfall andhail are common during the summer monthsin the tropical and sub-tropical parts of thecountry. Major damage from storms hasbeen recorded in eastern Nepal (1980) andmid-western Nepal (1983). Storm winds ofeven moderate velocities have major effectsin the Tarai, where most of the houses andstructures are lightly roofed.The most occurring disaster in March/Apriland October are hailstorms that have adisastrous effect especially on agriculture.While most of the hail that precipitates fromthe clouds is fairly small and virtuallyharmless, there have been cases of golf ballsized hail that causes much damage especiallyto the standing crops and inflict injuries. Thunderstorms dominate the weather duringMay to September. A thunderstorm isnor mal ly accompanied by heavyprecipitation. During wintertime, especiallyin December and January, the northern areasof Nepal suffer harsh snow storms.

Other HazardsIn Nepal, cold waves –related casualties havetaken place not much in the very cold placesin the high Himalayas, but in the sub-tropicalTarai. They have also caused death and injuryto livestock and wildlife. If a cold wave isaccompanied by heavy and persistent snow,grazing animals may be unable to reachneeded food and die of hypothermia or

starvation. Such cold waves can causefamines and result in numerous fatalities.November to February are the months forthe cold waves.

Heat waves with rise in atmospheric averagetemperature well above the average of aregion have been reported to induce adverseeffects on human populations, crops,properties and services. This is common inTarai region in southern Nepal.

The flat plains of Tarai in the south of thecountry also show the highest level ofsusceptibility to liquefaction.

Cyclonic wind is a hazard that destroyshorticultural crops in spring, while hailstormcauses significant harm to the summer aswell as winter crops, especially in themountainous areas of the country.

Historically, famines have occurred becauseof drought, crop failure, pestilence, andbecause of human-induced causes such aswar or misguided economic policies. Faminesare not frequently reported as other naturaldisaster events in Nepal but every year theyhave serious effect on people in the country.Rarely lives are lost by famine but the effecton people is high.

Glacial Lakes Outburst Floods (GLOFs)and Avalanches are typical of high Himalayanregions. The problem of GLOFs is beingintensified due to the climate change resultingin accelerated melting of the glacier tonguesand rapid enlargement of the glacial lakescontained by natural moraine dams. Severalglacial lakes have been mapped in Nepal.Snow avalanches are prevalent in theHimalayan region – they pose risk to thehigh mountain tourism industry.

Other hazards including boat capsize, frost,accidents (caused by natural phenomenon),leaks, panic, pollution, sedimentation,structural collapse are also recorded in Nepal.

| 7


Ch

ap

ter

1

The development of DisasterRisk Management in NepalAs stated, Nepal is prone to various kindsof frequently occurring disasters. Flood,landslide, fire, epidemics, drought are someregular events which cause huge loss of lifeand property every year; whereas, largeearthquakes on the other hand, are lessfrequent but when they occur, cause severedamage and destruction. Developmentalachievements gained in decades are lostwithin few seconds and minutes during suchlarge disasters. Economics of such disasterlosses are also great: a significant proportionof Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is lostevery year due to large, medium and smalldisasters. Therefore, fighting with disasterevents through effective search, rescue andrelief to disaster victims; timely and equitablereconstruction and rehabilitation; andmitigation in the long run always requiredsignificant amount of time, efforts andbudget from the government and localcommunities. Management of disasters anddisaster risks have been a key area of work.

There was a time when occurrence of naturalhazard events were regarded as the acts ofgod or divine power and each disaster eventwas treated on a case to case basis. Themanagement consisted in providing reliefin the form of cash grants, cloths and foodgrains on ad-hoc basis from the availableresources.

More systematic work related to disaster riskmanagement began in Nepal only after 1982when the Natural Calamity (Relief) Act wasfirst promulgated. Starting from 1970s, thenecessity for a more organised treatment ofnatural disaster started being felt in thecountry due mainly to the experience gainedwhile administrating relief works and surveysof several disasters, such as the landslide atDeurali (Pokhara) in 1974 which claimed 62

lives in one night. Several expert missionsfielded by Office of Foreign DisasterAssistance (OFDA), United Nations DisasterRelief Organization (UNDRO) and UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) also recomme-nded for comprehensive approach fordisaster management in the country.

Government Initiatives andPolicy InterventionNatural Calamity (Relief) Act, 1982Prior to 1982, rescue, relief as well asresettlement of disaster victims were carriedout in Nepal on an ad-hoc basis, primarilyas a social work. The Government of Nepalpromulgated the Natural Calamity (Relief)Act in 1982 to carry out rescue, relief worksin a systematic manner. The Act has sincethen been amended thrice (first in 1986,second in 1989 and third in 1992) enunciatingthe significance of the pre-disaster and postdisaster activities.

The Act was instrumental in imparting anorganized approach to disaster managementin the country. It helped develop anorganizational structure from central to locallevel, to deal with response and relief works.Furthermore, the Act provided the basis forcoordination among various agencies,government and non-government inemergency response activities.

However, it has been widely felt that thepresent Act, just can not address the wholespectrum of hazard mitigation and disasterrisk reduction issues. The Act does notdiscriminate between the different types ofdisaster for management purposes. It needsincorporation of the whole philosophy ofthe possibility of disaster reduction andshould still further emphasise the pre-eventactivities for risk reduction. There has beena general consensus that the country requiresa new act to incorporate the whole spectrum

8 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

of disaster risk management starting fromrisk reduction, mitigation to preparedness,response and reconstruct ion andrehabilitation.

Lessons of 1988 Earthquake andDevelopment of National BuildingCodeThe magnitude 6.5 Udayapur earthquake ofeastern Nepal that occurred in the morningof 21 August 1988 was a major turning pointfor Nepal in terms of starting the conceptsfor risk reduction and mitigation. One ofthe key lessons realized during thisearthquake was the need for formulationand enforcement of building codes thatensure the earthquake safety of residentialand all other buildings. Significant numberof private houses and public buildings weredamaged and destroyed due to the lack ofseismic features. This realization led to theformulation of a project concept fordevelopment of building code and long-term shelter policy and plans.

In 1988, the then newly formed Ministry ofHousing and Physical Planning (MHPP),requested technical assistance from UnitedNations Development Forum (UNDP) andUNCHS for institutional development andcapability strengthening of MHPP andformulation of a long term shelter policyfor Nepal. Subsequently in 1990, a three-year program of Policy and TechnicalSupport to Urban Sector (PTSUS - UNDP/UNCHS PROJECT NEP/88/054) wasinitiated within the MHPP. Originallyscheduled to be completed in 1992, theproject was extended until December 1993.

The project consisted of seven components:Formulation of a National Shelter Policyand Implementation Strategy based on acomprehensive shelter needs assessment;Preparation of a national shelter sectorTraining Needs Assessment and Strategy;Strengthening of MHPP capabilities in

management and co-ordination; Mappingearthquake hazard patterns and analyse risksto various types of buildings anddevelopment patterns; Formulate a nationalbuilding code, incorporating earthquake-resistant standards and guidelines; Developnew and improved building materials andearthquake-resistant standards and guidelines;and Provide staff training in the sheltersector.

In addition to the Shelter PolicyDevelopment, the project consisted of acomponent for the development of NationalBuilding Code. The Building Codecomponent of the project comprised ofthree distinct sub-components:1) Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk

Assessment of Nepal: to establish anappropriate level of design againstearthquake-induced damage in Nepal

2) Preparation and Implementation ofNational Building Code

3) Development of Alternative BuildingMaterials and Technologies

The project, in 1994, finally completed theformulation of Nepal National BuildingCode and two other studies.

The Building Code developed was uniquein itself; it incorporated provisions formaking buildings earthquake-resistant, itaddressed the problems not only of theengineered buildings but also those housesin rural, semi-urban and urban areas whichare mostly constructed without the inputfrom qualified building/structural engineers.It has four levels of code documents:i. Buildings designed with International

State-of-the-art provisionsii. Provisions for Professionally Engineered

Buildingsiii. Mandatory Rules of Thumb for mostly

available urban and semi-urban residentialbuildings

iv. Guidelines for rural construction

| 9


Ch

ap

ter

1

all government buildings and encouragedto implement it in all municipal areas.

1993 Flood of South Central Nepaland Sectoral Working GroupsThree sectoral working groups, namelyHealth, Logistics, and Food and Agriculturewere established during the flood responseof 1993 in order to achieve bettercoordination and effective response. In 1994,the government requested the internationalcommunity to help continue the threesectoral working groups in order to preparesectoral contingency plans for futuredisasters. The UN system agreed to continueand coordinate the three sectoral workinggroups. The responsibility of the sectoralworking g roups, which inc ludedrepresentatives from the government, theUN, donors and NGOs, was to providesupport to the government’s on-going reliefefforts in the sectors of food and agriculture,health, and logistics.

In 1995, the sectoral working groupsproduced three manuals that were revisedin 1999. These manuals were intended toserve as the rolling plans. The meetings andactivities of the Working Groups graduallydecreased over the years, and virtuallybecame non-existing. However, at the endof 2000, the Epidemiology and DiseaseControl Division (EDCD) of Departmentof Health Services, Ministry of Health, andWorld Health Organization (WHO) decidedto revitalise the Disaster Health WorkingGroup (DHWG). Later, the DHWGprepared a health sector emergencypreparedness and disaster response plan.

Establishment of Disaster PreventionTechnical Center (DPTC)Nepal suffers from various types of water-induced disasters such as soil erosion,landslides, debris flow, flood, bank erosionetc. due to its rugged topographically weak geological formations, active seismic

Although the building code was unique inits nature to address the problems of Nepalit was not enforced immediately. It tookseveral years to be formally enforced by theGovernment of Nepal. In 2003 only, theGovernment of Nepal decided to make thebuilding code compliance mandatory in

Figure 1.1 : News coverage on Building CodeImplementation from “The Rising Nepal”

10 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

Figure 1.2: Then Prime Minister, Home Minister and distinguished guests observing models on earthquake resistant buildingconstruction at Earthquake Safety Day 2010, LalitpurPhoto Courtesy: NSET

conditions, occasional glacier lake outburstfloods, concentrated monsoon rainsassociated with unscientific land utilizations.These phenomena induce severe impactson the vital infrastructures of the nationsuch as roads, houses, hydropower, irrigationand drinking water facilities, cause loss ofagricultural lands, properties and humanlives posing a severe threat to the sustainabledevelopment of the country. In order topromote prevention and mitigation of thesedisasters in Nepal, an agreement was signedbetween Government of Nepal and theGovernment of Japan on 7 October 1991for the establishment of Water InducedDisaster Prevention Technical Centre(DPTC) as a joint undertaking of concernedagencies of GoN with the Ministry of WaterResources (MoWR) as leading agency, andthe cooperation of the Government of Japanthrough Japan International CooperationAgency (JICA) for the initial five years andlater extended for two and half years untilMarch 1999.

The objective of DPTC was to strengthencapability of the government to cope withdisasters such as landslides, debris flows,soil erosion and f looding throughdevelopment of technology suitable to Nepaland training of personnel working in thesefields.

To institutionalize the objectives andachievements of the DPTC, the Departmentof Water Induced Disaster Prevention(DWIDP) was established on 7 February2000 under the Ministry of Water Resources.The then River Training Division of theDepartment of Irrigation was merged inthe organizational structure of the DWIDPto strengthen its institutional capability. SevenDivision and five Sub-Division offices wereestablished so as to mitigate the water-induced disasters throughout the country.

Since then, DWIDP has been workingtowards prevention and mitigation of waterinduced disasters as well as towards post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction.

| 11


Ch

ap

ter

1

Earthquake Safety DayRaising awareness among people andauthorities on impending earthquake riskand on ways to mitigating the risks is a keyfor reducing the risk. Realizing this, Nepalhas been observing every year 15th or 16thof January (2nd day of Magh as per NepaliCalendar) as the Earthquake Safety Day withseveral earthquake awareness-raisingactivities. The day is observed incommemoration of the devastation causedby 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake whichoccurred on 15th January 1934. In 1999,Government of Nepal declared theEarthquake Safety Day and established anEarthquake Safety Day National Committeefor observing the Day annually throughoutthe country. ESD National Committee ledby Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) drawsrepresentatives from all emergency responseorganizations and critical facilities. ESD isobserved annually with varieties of awarenessactivities that extend for many days. Thekey events are the national meeting,awareness rally, earthquake safety exhibition,symposium, public broadcast of earthquakesafety message by the Home Minister; shake-table demonstration of building models withand without seismic safety elements; childrenessay and painting competitions; earthquakesafety walkathon, street drama etc. Numerouspublications such as information leaflets,calendars, posters on earthquake safety aredistributed to the public. Earlier, the dayused to be observed at the central level inKathmandu only; but now the ESDprograms are also organized in severalmunicipalities and district headquarters. Ithas been realized that the celebration ofsuch a day with awareness raising activitieshas contributed much to revisit year-longefforts, renew national commitments towardearthquake safety promotion and help raisepublic awareness.

Local Self Governance Act 1999Local Self Governance Act 1999 (LSGA,1999) gave a momentum to the process ofdecentralization and devolution of authority.It helped empower the local governmentsto undertake disaster management activities.LSGA gave the responsibilities in terms ofreducing risks associated to disasters andmanaging the disasters to local governments.This opened up tremendous opportunitiesfor preparing plans, programs andimplementing actions to reduce disaster risksat the local level. Some municipalities, VDCsand DDCs started good initiatives such asdisaster risk management master planning,training of professionals and staff,implementation of community based disasterrisk management programs etc. However,due to the current vacuum in terms ofelected representatives, the local authoritieshave not been able to perform at the requiredlevel.

Moreover, other legal tools such asregulations, by-laws etc. to support theimplementation of the provisions of LSGAhave not been in place, which has hinderedthe process to a larger extent.

The Study on Earthquake DisasterMitigation in Kathmandu Valley(SEDM)Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and theJapan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) carried out a project “The Study onEarthquake Disaster Mitigation in theKathmandu Valley, Kingdom of Nepal”(MoHA/HMGN-J ICA, 2002 ) i ncooperation with several Nepaleseinstitutions. The study undertook detailedloss estimation for 3 scenario earthquakes.Assessment of potential casualty and damageto infrastructures was done at the municipalward level. Different surveys wereundertaken for assessing the available

12 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

resources and constraints. A buildinginventory comprising 1100 typical buildingsrepresenting the valley was prepared.Damage analysis of existing building stock,public facilities and lifeline networks wasbased on the building inventory. This studyalso undertook a social structure survey thatexplored existing social norms thatcontributed to disaster resiliency of thesociety. The existing policy and legalenvironment was also researched .

It ended up with proposing several schemesfor making seismic risk coping mechanismoperational and sustainable. The followingare some key recommendations of the study:• Build a coordination mechanism by

establishing a permanent structure suchas National Disaster Council

• Put higher priority on the disastermitigation and preparedness policies andconfirm it in the 5 year national plan

• Empower local autonomous bodies forrisk management

• Promote public awareness to earthquakedisaster and give support to target groupsfor resilient capacity on self-help basis

The SEDM proposed generation andimplementation of earthquake disasterreduction plans at different levels of thegovernment. It was suggested that theindividual disaster management plans shouldbe prepared at each level of governmentand institutions by the method of fullparticipatory planning by all stakeholders.

Mechanisms for Sustainable Development ofDisaster ManagementCurrently Nepal lacks the necessary mechanisms forsustainable disaster management. It is clear that thefollowing steps must be taken to improve the capacityfor disaster management in Nepal:1) Establish a strong legal base for a comprehensive

risk management system.2) Create sustainable mechanisms for inter-

governmental and inter-institutional coordination.3) Ensure that the Tenth Five-Year Plan, currently in

preparation, includes plans and funding for firmdisaster mitigation measures.

4) Promote and strengthen self-governance of localbodies for risk management.

5) Promote public awareness on self-protectionagainst earthquake disasters and outreach totargeted groups.

Need to Maintain GovernanceThe government, at all levels, is responsible forproviding continuity of effective leadership, directionof emergency operations, and management of recoveryoperations. For this reason, it is essential thatgovernmental entities continue to function during andfollowing a disaster. This requires that they take actionson preparedness such as: preparing plans/manuals toguide initial response; establishing systems forcommunications/coordination, including an Emergency

Box 1.2 : Main Recommendations of SEDMOperations Centre; and advising employees of theirresponsibilities in case of disaster.Key elements of emergency plans and manuals includethe assignment of responsibilities/authority, theestablishment of systems for command/control/communications/coordination, and thecollection/dissemination of information.Emergency response/recovery planning should beprepared for prompt/proper decision-making andsmooth execution of the decided measures before,during, and after a disaster. The importance ofcommunication for the initial response should berecognised, as well as the importance of the role ofthe media in communication.

Protection of Life and PropertyMany difficulties are anticipated in the initial stages ofthe disaster, including search and rescue operations,medical services, cremation, drinking water and food,public health care, security, fire-fighting, managementof volunteers, safety inspections of structures andinfrastructure, debris removal and disposal, shelter andtemporary housing, etc. Due to inadequate responseplanning and systems for inter-institutionalcoordination, public onsite services in an emergencyare likely to be deficient for the time being. Communityinvolvement and the sense of self-protection by thepeople are accordingly indispensable.

| 13


Ch

ap

ter

1

(including for the Melamchi project), securing a watersupply distribution system by water tankers, andpreservation of existing wells and spouts at the locallevel.(5) Telecommunications FacilitiesThe current vulnerability of telecommunicationsfacilities is carefully examined. To create a reliablenetwork against disaster, it is recommended tocomplete the multiple diversity routing compositionas well as to establish emergency communication andbroadcasting systems.(6) Urban StructureSeveral separate areas within the city centre ofKathmandu should be designated as intensivedevelopment areas for disaster prevention bymaximising the disaster mitigation characteristics ofthe urban structure. Securing emergency evacuationroutes and preserving evacuation areas in some areasof the city are effective measures that can be appliedto Kathmandu. Each of these measures should beimplemented to reinforce the city against disasters.Disaster mitigation measures in central Kathmandu willbe proposed on a geographic area basis by classifyingthe central city areas into eight strategic zones basedon the characteristics of the urban structure.

Recommendations and ProposalsAs a result of the study, about one hundred potentialprogrammes were identified for the improvement ofearthquake disaster management in Kathmandu Valley. The study team evaluated the programmes from theviewpoints of term, priority and reality.Fulfilment of all the programmes would require atremendous amount of time and money. The teamconsequently selected four projects, which each includeseveral programmes, for urgent implementation. Theimplementation of the projects will hopefully bringvisible results and thus further promote endeavoursto achieve the three goals for earthquake disasterreduction.The four projects are:a) Establishment of an Early Earthquake Information

System,b) Establishment of a Municipality Disaster

Management Institution and Exercise,c) Building Improvement, andd) Establishment of a Comprehensive Database for

Earthquake Disaster Mitigation.Besides the selected projects, it should be noted thatthere are important and long-term projects with highpriority/reality, i.e., the Sindhuli road project aiming atimproving access to the Valley, road widening projectsfor smoother mobility in the Valley, and the Melamchiwater supply projects.

The logistics to support on-site activities after theoccurrence of a disaster is a critical issue. Thetransportation system must continue to function duringand after the occurrence of the earthquake disaster sothat the on-site activities of search and rescue andother socio-economic activities can continue tofunction. Similarly, prompt restoration of electricalservice and water supplies to affected areas wouldplay an important role during the initial stages of adisaster. The existing conditions of these and othercritical elements of the infrastructure are discussed,identifying the underlying problems. Priority projectsto improve the current situation are also presented.

The Need to Strengthen the Socio-Economic SystemWorking towards sustainable development is a naturaland necessary companion to working towards effectiveearthquake disaster management itself, because theability to deal with earthquake disasters is highlydependent upon the fundamentals of society, economicgrowth and social stability, all of which are the fruitsof sustainable development. Urban society is highlydependent on the socio-economic infrastructure, andany weakness makes it vulnerable to disaster. The vastdirect and indirect economic and societal losses causedby disasters can be reduced by reinforcing theinfrastructure through sustainable developmentpractices. The fundamental elements of theinfrastructure are discussed.(1) Transportation FacilitiesThe existing master plan studies were reviewed.Proposals for roads, bridges and the airport to improvethe access to and mobility inside the Valley arepresented.(2) Building StructuresMost of the existing buildings have severe deficienciesregarding earthquake resistance. The report presents,discusses and makes recommendations on the currentbuilding construction system, the Draft NationalBuilding Code of Nepal, and the defects of individualtypes of buildings: hospitals, schools and publicbuildings, and historical buildings.(3) Electric Power Supply FacilitiesAn evaluation of the master plan studies on thetransmission and distribution network in the Valley wasperformed. Provision of a stable transmission systemis proposed in the city core areas of KathmanduMetropolis. Other recommendations, includingpreparation and implementation of design manuals forearthquake resistance and training of personnel for aneffective technical support system, are presented.(4) Water Supply and Sewerage FacilitiesThe ongoing Melamchi Project is expected tosignificantly improve the extremely poor water supplyand sewerage conditions. Urgent tasks includepreparing design manuals for earthquake resistance

14 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

Climate Change Impacts andAdaptation in NepalNepal is a hotspot for geophysical andclimatic hazards. The country is highlyvulnerable to the potential negative impactsof climate change. Consistent rises in annualmean temperature, less frequent but moreintensive rainfall events, increasing frequencyand intensity of floods, changes in monsoonon- and offset, increased outbreak of water-borne and vector-borne diseases, growingthreat from Glacial Lake Outburst Floods(GLOFs), longer dry spells and droughtevents, and increasingly stronger stormshave already been experienced in Nepal inthe past decade. These climate-inducedhazards are not only causing damage andloss of human lives and property; they alsoundermine development progress in Nepaland put the achievement of MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) at risk,including the obl igat ions of andcommitments to the climate change regime.

The world is already experiencing thedestructive effects of rising globaltemperatures, altered rainfall patterns andextreme weather. In the short term, suchimpacts create pressing needs for disasterrelief and reactive climate adaptationmeasures. But medium and long term effectswill almost certainly be much moredisruptive. Wide-ranging impacts, includingon agriculture, ecosystems and humanhabitation, will continue for decades andmany will grow in frequency and intensity(World Resource Report 2010-11).

Faced with this reality, governments,multilateral institutions, civil society andcommunities must seek to build the resilienceof both current and future generations toclimate impacts. In doing so they must tailortheir responses to the specific characteristicsand unpredictable nature of climate change.

There is a general agreement that climate

change impacting Nepal rather dispropor-tionately compared to its size and its ownmeagre contribution of the green housegases. However, given its location betweentwo rapidly growing economies of India andChina, Nepal cannot escape the rapidlyincreasing influence of climate and globalchanges. The rapidly retreating glaciers(average retreat of more than 30 m/year),rapid rise in average maximum temperature(>0.06°C), erratic rainfalls and increase infrequency of extreme events such as floodsand drought like situation are some of theeffects Nepal is facing during the last fewyears. Most of the big rivers of Nepal areglacier-fed and its main resources of waterand hydroelectricity will be seriously affecteddue to the ongoing changes in glacierreserves, snowfall and natural hazards.

An analysis of about 30 years of observedtemperature of Nepal has shown thatmaximum temperatures in Nepal areincreasing at an alarming rate (Shrestha etal., 1999). Study carried out by theDepartment of Hydrology and Meteorology(DHM) shows that the all-Nepal maximumtemperature increased by 1.8°C in 32 yearsbetween 1975-2006, which is equal to about0.06°C per year. Such warming is found tobe more pronounced in the northern highaltitude regions of Nepal. Further, warmingin the winter is more pronounced comparedto other seasons. The increasing trend ofmaxium temperature is a dominant featureof the country except for the western middlemountainous region. For minimumtemperature, the decreasing trend is observedover the western and west of centralmountainous regions and the eastern partsof the country. However, increasing trendis dominant over most of the regions.

Another analysis of daily temperature datafor 36 years from 1971 to 2006 usingRClimDex software also shows that both

| 15


Ch

ap

ter

1

significant and consistent increase intemperature in Nepal for the years 2030,2050, and 2100 across the various models.This analysis also shows somewhat largerwarming in winter months than the summermonths. The projected change above thebaseline average is 1.2° C for 2030, 1.7°Cfor 2050 and 3.0°C for 2100.

Analysis of precipitation data from stationrecords all over Nepal does not reveal anysignificant trends. However, an analysis ofdaily precipitation data for 46 years from1961-2006 shows an increasing trend inprecipitation extremes. About 73% stations(out of 26 total station selected for the study)exhibited an increase in the annual count ofdays when precipitation is greater or equalto 50 mm.

A recent study projected that doubling ofatmospheric carbondioxide concentrationwill reduce Nepal’s forest types from 15 to12, and habitats and ecosystems will bedestroyed. Climate change will also affectproductivity of natural ecosystems,particularly provision of environmentalservices.

Nepal has to prepare itself to try and mitigatethese effects if possible and if not adapt to

(Temperature deviation from normal in °C)Source: Shrestha et al., 1999

Figure 1.3: Comparison between temperatures in Kathmanduand global and all-Nepal temperature

Source: Update after Shrestha et al., 1999

Figure 1.4: All Nepal temperature trend (1975-2006)Source: DHM

16 |

days and nights are becoming warmer andcool days and cool nights are becoming lessfrequent (Baidya et al., 2008).

The projection of temperature byOrganization for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) shows a

Annual (Jan-Dec)

Table 1.2: Regional Mean TemperatureTrends for the period 1977-94 (°C per year)

Figure 1.5: Effect of global warming is moreacutely manifested in higher altitude(Chhuksang, Mustang)

Ch

ap

ter 1

them to reduce their impacts on our livesand livelihoods. Nepal is largely amountainous country and current indicationsare that the mountain regions are morevulnerable due to increased warming trendsas well as extreme changes in altitude oversmall distances. These alarming trends notonly make Nepal's major sectors of economysuch as agriculture, tourism and energy morevulnerable but also endanger the health,safety and wellbeing of Nepali people.

For a least developed country such as Nepal,adaptation should be the priority.Government of Nepal has prepared NationalAdaptation Program of Action (NAPA) toClimate Change. It comprises nine priorityprojects. Well coordinated, quick and seriousimplementation of NAPA will be extremelyimportant to mitigate and adapt to thegrowing impacts of climate change in Nepal.

On June 12, 1992, during the Earth Summitat Rio, Nepal signed the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) treaty. Nepal ratified the treatyon May 2, 1994 which came into effect fromJuly 31, 1994 and Nepal respondedimmediately with the establishment of

Environment Protection Council (EPC)under the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon'blePrime Minister with the objective ofintegrating environmental concerns into thedevelopment process. The EPC initiated theprocess of formulating the national policyon environment and approved the "NationalEnvironmental Policy and Action Plan(NEPAP)" in 1994. In November 1996,GON also established Alternative EnergyPromotion Centre (AEPC) under theMinistry of Science and Technology(MoEST). Realizing the importance ofimpacts of climate change on environmentand pertinent issues, the government ofNepal established a separate Ministry ofEnvironment in 2009.

In the policy and legislative front also, Nepalinitiated several measures. It broughtSustainable Development Agenda for Nepalin 2003 to guide the sustainable developmentpath till 2017. Other several policies,strategies, and laws which are relevant tothe issues of environmental problems andclimate change have been put into force.The major national environmental policiesinclude the National Conservation Strategy,

| 17

In the picture, there seem Nepal's Prime Minister Madhav KumarNepal, center, and members of the cabinet raise hands in favorof a document to highlight the negative impacts of globalwarming on Mount Everest during a special cabinet meeting atKalapatthar in Nepal, on 4 Dec 2009. Nepal's top politiciansstrapped on oxygen tanks and held a Cabinet meeting amid thefrigid, thin air of Mount Everest to highlight the danger globalwarming poses to glaciers, ahead of international climate changetalks in COP15.

The government billed the activity as the world's highest Cabinetmeeting. The ministers posed for pictures, signed a commitmentto tighten environmental regulations and expand the nation'sprotected areas, and then quickly flew back to capital city.

"The Everest declaration was a message to the world to minimizethe negative impact of climate change on Mount Everest andother Himalayan mountains," Prime Minister Madhav KumarNepal later said.

Source: www.msnbc.com

Nepal holds Cabinet Meeting atMount Everest


Ch

ap

ter

1

1988, the Nepal Environment Policy andAction Plan,1993, the SustainableDevelopment Agenda 2003. The NationalClimate Change Policy has been preparedand is in the process of finalization. TheInterim Constitution of Nepal, 2006, hasfor the first time, recognized “right to cleanenvironment”, as a fundamental right of thecitizens of Nepal. Environment ProtectionAct, 1996 and Environment ProtectionRegulations, 1997 are the key environmental

18 |

“Vulnerability to disaster is growing faster than resilience. [...] Disaster risk reductionshould be an everyday concern for everybody. Let us all invest today for a safer tomorrow."

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

Message for the International Day for Disaster Reduction

legislations. The other legislations includeSoil and Water Conservation Act, 1982;Water Resources Act, 1992; IndustrialEnterprises Act, 1992; Vehicle and TransportManagement Act, 1992 and Regulations,1997 (with first amendment in 2004); ForestAct, 1992 and Regulations, 1995; Local Self-governance Act, 1999 and Local Self-Governance Regulations, 1999 and OzoneDepleting Substance ConsumptionRegulations, 2001.

Most of the rural Nepali women has to spend up to half their day collecting water, an impact of climate changePhoto Courtesy: Tear Australia

Ch

ap

ter 1

impact to the environment from naturalhazards thereby contributing to theaspirations of alleviating poverty andimproving the quality of life of all Nepalipeople.

The formulation of policy and legislativeprocedures on disaster issue in Nepal datesback in early 1980s when Natural Calamity(Relief) Act, 1982 was enacted. With thisbackdrop, Nepal is considered to be one ofthe first countries in South Asia to havecreated a policy and legal environment fordisaster risk management. The NaturalCalamity (Relief) Act, 1982 did perform amission to formalize disaster response as aresponsibility of the government to providerelief to the victims of the disaster-events,and it designated authorities at the centreand district levels to coordinate the rescueand relief efforts of various responseagencies. However, the experience of thepast three decades evidenced that thisstructure is capable to coordinate only smallto medium level disasters. The stipulationsof the Act and the institutional mechanismit has created were not adequate to manageemergency response during medium disasterssuch as the Udayapur earthquake of 1988or the flood disaster in south-central Nepalin 1993.

National Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement (NSDRM) has been developedbased on the HFA in consultation with therelevant stakeholders across all levels. TheHyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015(HFA) was hence the beacon throughoutthe strategy formulation process. Referenceto HFA was made not only because itrecommends what every country should dofor disaster reduction, but also becauseGovernment of Nepal had taken part indeveloping this framework and has madecommitments to implement it. Hence,streamlining the National Strategy in linewith the HFA is regarded as the most

National Platform on Disaster RiskReductionThe Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)and the subsequent first Global Platformon Disaster Risk Reduction (GPDRR)organized during 5-7 June 2007 haveenvisioned establishment of NationalPlatform for Disaster Risk Reduction(NPDRR) in each country to provide policyand technical support to the governmentand also to complement the efforts. In linewith the recommendations, NationalPlatform on Disaster Risk Reduction(NPDRR) was established in Nepal in 2008under the National Directives Act 2018 ofNepal. The platform is headed by theMinistry of Home Affairs (MoHA) andseveral relevant government agencies, UNorganizations and NGOs/INGOs sit as themembers. The platform is believed mainlyto develop consensus concepts and actionsfor mainstreaming disaster risk reductioninto policy, plans, and programs throughadvocacy, coordination and analysis; toensure political commitments; and to providedirections and guidance on disaster riskreduction activities.

National Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement in Nepal 2009With the broader national vision of making“Disaster-resilient Nepal”, Government ofNepal approved the National Strategy forDisaster Risk Management in Nepal(NSDRM) on October 11, 2009. TheNational Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement is a commitment of theGovernment of Nepal to reflect theparadigm shift towards enhancing disasterresiliency as part of the fulfilment of thebasic right of the people. It also expressesthe desire of the people and government ofNepal to reduce disaster risks to anacceptable level for safeguarding their lives,properties, development investments, culturalheritage as well as to mitigate the adverse

| 19


Ch

ap

ter

1

important approach to be adopted. Thestrategy is based on the ground realities andidentified needs of Nepal. It has tried tocapture the opportunities of Disaster RiskManagement (DRM) in Nepal in line withthe current international understanding,scientific progress and regional initiatives.The strategy is expected to provide the roadmap for all sectors to prepare sector specificprograms for DRM and formulate thenecessary policy decisions for facilitatingmainstreaming DRM into the developmentprocess.

The strategy has identified 29 cross-sectoralpriority strategic actions and several sectoralactivities for DRM. The cross-sectoralstrategies are based on gaps and issuesidentified and are focused on addressing theidentified gaps in particular sectors. Theyare divided into the five Priorities for Action.The following sectors have been considered:• Agriculture and Food security• Health• Education• Shelter, Infrastructure and Physical

Planning• Livelihood Protection• Water and Sanitation• Information, Communication,

Coordination and Logistics• Search and Rescue and Damage and

Needs AssessmentIn regard to establishing effective institutionalstructures, National Council for DisasterRisk Management (NCDM) has beenenvisioned as the highest level institution tobe constituted under chairmanship of PrimeMinister. Home Minister is the Deputy Chairand Council Members include ministers,Chief of the Army Staff, Chief of the policedepartments and representatives of the civilsociety. The NCDM is responsible for:• Endorsement of national policies on

DRM,

• Approving the national-level & sector-wise DRM plans,

• Guide and oversee management of fundgeneration and mobilization on RiskReduction/Mitigation, Preparedness,Response, Recovery, Rehabilitation andReconstruction; and

• Provide policy guidance for bilateral,sub-regional, regional and internationalcooperation in the area of DRM.

To work as the Secretariat of NCDM,National Disaster Management Authority(NDMA) has been envisaged. The NDMAis the National focal point for theimplementation, facilitation, coordinationand monitoring of the strategies of DisasterRisk Management. During and after anational level disaster, the NDMA hasresponsibility to work on emergencyresponse, recovery, reconstruction andrehabilitation. To be able to discharge thisresponsibility, the NDMA is to developnecessary strategies, standards and guidelines,and design plans and programmes forcapacity building and emergency response.

Also three high level committees areenvisaged to constitute at the central levelon Preparedness, Search & Rescue andRehabilitation & Reconstruction with theview to sector-wise activities. Theinstitutional structure also envisages theconstitution of a Regional, District and locallevel Disaster Management Committees(DMC).

Proposed Disaster Management Bill,2009The proposed Disaster Management Bill,2009 is towards enhancing effectivemanagement of risk reduction throughoutthe disaster management cycle-preparedness,mitigation, rescue and relief, rehabilitationand recovery.

The proposed Bill emphasizes on protecting

20 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

and securing lives and property withemphasis on critical facilities that impactgeneral public and facilitates managementof disasters effectively. The proposedDisaster Management Bill, 2009 calls forreplacement of the existing Natural Calamity(Relief) Act, 1982. The salient features ofthe proposed DM Bill are:• Disasters are defined distinctly as natural

and human induced• Provision for National Council for

Disaster Management (NCDM) to bechaired by Prime Minister of Nepal withclear mandate and functions, duties,responsibilities and authority of thecouncil.

• Proposal to set up National DisasterManagement Authority (NDMA) underthe NCDM, to act as the focal point fordisaster management functions in Nepalfrom formulation of appropriatestrategies and plans to implementationand supervision of disaster managementactivities

• Clarifies the role, responsibility andfunctions of security forces includingNepal Army, Nepal Police and ArmedPolice Force; institutions, industrial sectorand private organizations

It is very urgent to pass out the DisasterManagement Bi l l to suppor t theimplementation of National Strategy forDisaster Risk Management, whichsupplements the development of the countryand ensures the rights of each individual tosafe life.(Extracted from Disaster Risk Reduction: Aninformation pack for Constituent Assembly members ofNepal)

Preparation of Disaster Preparednessand Response Plan (DPRP) inDistrictsMinistry of Home Affairs (MoHA) is leadingthe preparedness initiatives jointly with otherGovernment agencies, UN agencies,

national/international organizations, civilsocieties, DPNet-Nepal etc. As a result ofthis initiative, National workshop in 2010recommended 21 points and approved byCentral Natural Disaster Relief Committee(CNDRC) for an effective disasterpreparedness initiative at district, regionaland nat ional levels. One of therecommendations was to make “DistrictLead Support Agencies (DLSA)” in 67districts among the national and internationalagencies with an objective to support DDRCfor preparing “District Disaster Preparednessand Response Plan’. It has resulted in verypositive feedbacks from all the actors. As aresult, more than 60 districts completed thepreparation of DPRP including five regionalauthorities drafted the Standard OperatingProcedures (SOP) in 2010. It was realizedthat these preparedness initiatives haveachieved major success in responding thefloods and landslides in 2010.

The lessons learned from a series of jointmeetings suggested for amending theGuidance Note 2008 to include the multi-hazard scenarios for planning includingearthquake as a mandatory to all 75 districts.

Nepal Risk Reduction ConsortiumAn innovative form of internationalcooperation has been developed to prioritizeand implement key elements of theNSDRM. It is the Nepal Risk ReductionConsortium (NRRC) and its FlagshipPrograms developed in consultation withthe government and other stakeholders.

In May 2009, comprehensive Nepal DisasterRisk Reduction Consortium (NRRC) waslaunched to support the Government ofNepal in developing a long term disasterrisk reduction action plan building upon thenew National Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement (NSDRM). The NRRCinitiated a multi-stakeholder participatory

| 21


Ch

ap

ter

1

process with the government and civil societyorganizations to identify short to mediumterm disaster risk reduction priorities thatare both urgent and viable within the currentinstitutional and policy arrangements in thecountry.

The NRRC is a unique institutionalarrangement, bringing together financialinstitutions, development partners, the RedCross / Red Crescent Movement, and theUN in partnership with the Government ofNepal. It bridges the spectrum ofdevelopment and humanitarian partners,uniting to support the Government of Nepalin developing a long term Disaster RiskReduction Action Plan building on theNational Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement (NSDRM). The foundingmembers of the Consortium are the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), the InternationalFederation of the Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies (IFRC), United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), UNOffice for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs (OCHA), UN International Strategyfor Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and theWorld Bank. The US Government and theHumanitarian Aid Department of theEuropean Commission (ECHO) alsoformally joined the NRRC in 2010. Thegovernment has formally established theNRRC Steering Committee, coordinated bythe Secretary of Home Affairs including anumber of ministries and the consortiumpartners. A Secretariat was also created tosupport the work of the Steering Committeeand is comprised of the Joint-Secretary andUnder-Secretary of MoHA and an NRRCCoordinator.

Based on government priorities anddiscussions with multi stakeholder groups,the NRRC and government identified fiveflagship areas for immediate interventionfor disaster risk management in Nepal,coordinated by one of the partnerorganizations:

1. School and hospital safety-structural andnon-structural aspects of making schoolsand hospitals earthquake resilientcoordinator (ADB)

2. Emergency preparedness and responsecapacity (UNOCHA)

3. Flood management in the Koshi riverbasin (World Bank)

4. Integrated community based disaster riskreduction/management (IFRC)

5. Policy/Institutional support for disasterrisk management (UNDP)

The objectives of NRRC are:• Support the Government of Nepal in

developing a long term DRR Action Planbuilding on the new National Strategyfor Disaster Risk Management

• Initiate a multi-stakeholder participatoryprocess with the Government of Nepaland civil society organizations

• Identify short to medium term disasterrisk reduction priorities that are bothurgent and viable within the currentinstitutional and policy arrangements inthe country

The NRRC represents an importantdevelopment in the disaster risk managementof the country. It has enabled theestablishment of a coordinated approachto areas of DRR that have been prioritizedbased on risk assessments, and bringstogether humanitarian and developmentactors, essential for a long-term approach.The engagement of the government isanother essential factor that allows fornational ownership and sustainability. Yet itis too early to state whether it has been asuccess or not as a model to secure increasedfunding to preparedness. The flagship areasare progressing at different stages and thosewith a clear work plan and set of targetshave been able to progress faster than others,with the help of financial support fromdonors and commitment from partners.

22 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

National Emergency OperationCenter (NEOC)The National Emergency Operations Centre(NEOC) was opened on 17 December 2010,by the Minister of Home Affairs and isoperated under the Planning and SpecialServices Division of MoHA. The objectiveof the NEOC is to work as a coordinationand communication point for disasterinformation across the country, includinggovernment agencies and other responseand recovery stakeholders.

The NEOC is a standalone pre fabricatedbuilding situated at the Ministry of HomeAffairs premises in Singha Durbar. Thebuilding has been built to earthquakestandards and is completely self contained,including multiple back up power supplies.The NEOC's working time is round theclock during the disaster period and neversleeps to get information. It has been runningby a nine-member personnel team underthe leadership of Under-Secretary.

As part of MoHA’s strategy to furtherdevelop Nepal’s emergency preparednessand response capacity, it is planning toestablish District Emergency OperationCentres (DEOCs) in all 75 districts. In thefirst phase, 11 districts have been selectedto setup DEOCs.

Creation of National Cluster GroupsFollowing the devastating 1993 floods insouth-central part of the country, Nepalestablished three “Working Groups” fordisaster management, this concept of“Working Group” is similar, to a certainextent, to the “Cluster Approach”promulgated by the UN Inter-AgencyStanding Committee (IASC) in 2005. It isnow globally accepted as an effective UN

mechanism that can help to address identifiedgaps in response and enhance the quality ofhumanitarian action by ensuring greaterpredictability and accountability, while at thesame time strengthening partnershipsbetween NGOs, international organizations,the International Red Cross and RedCrescent Movement and UN agencies.

On 18th August 2008, the Koshi Riverbreached an embankment through an easternretaining wall damaging two dam spursaffecting 8 Village Development Committees(VDCs) of Sunsari and Saptari districts. Theimpact was obviously massive and hugelyaggravated (please refer Chapter 3). Thedelayed registration process, slowidentification of alternative resettlementsites and movement of flood-affectedpopulation from India to Nepal led tomultiple challenges for the ensuingemergency operation. Distribution of foodand non-food items (NFIs) were delayeddue to the slowness of the registrationprocess and the capacity of host families tosupport displaced persons became majorconcerns considering the endemic povertyand vulnerability of the communitiesthemselves. Because of the complexsituation, the humanitarian community faceda challenge in responding to the wideremergency needs with limited financialresources. The government’s response wasinitially good and its approach a serious one.A district early-warning system wasapparently activated immediately and Armyand Armed Police Forces (APF) were sooninvolved in search and rescue - there waslittle loss of life. There was a first meetingof the Regional Disaster ResponseCommittee (RDRC) on the same eveningas the embankment breached and the firstmeeting at district level occurred in Sunsarithe next day.

| 23


Ch

ap

ter

1

24 |

Celebrating ISDR Day 2010, KathmanduPhoto Courtesy: DPNet-Nepal

While the Humanitarian Country Team(HCT) had already largely been organizedand functioning in line with the clusterapproach, the UN Humanitarian Coordinatorrequested formalization of the clusterapproach. The Inter- Agency StandingCommittee (IASC) endorsed the clusterapproach in Nepal focused on the flood-affected areas in September 2008 to provide‘predictable leadership and accountability’.At the national level, Cluster Leads met ona regular basis and coordinated with their

counterparts in the affected districts wherethe cluster approach was also adopted tomanage humanitarian assistance. At districtlevel, cluster meetings were often chairedby government line ministries. Localimplementing partners also attended clustermeetings. The cluster approach effectivelyenabled infor mation shar ing andmanagement, monitoring of projects, andassisted in the identification of gaps and/orduplication.

Ch

ap

ter 1

Global Initiatives and Nepal'sParticipationIDNDR Initiatives in Nepal and itsContribution in Advancing DRM

History

In 1987, the General Assembly of the UnitedNations (Res. 42/169) recognized theimportance of reducing the impact of naturaldisasters and decided to designate the decadeof 1990 as the International Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). Theaim of the decade was to foster internationalco-operation in the field of natural disasterreduction. Subsequently, the UN decided todesignate the second Wednesday of Octoberas the International Day for Natural DisasterReduction (Res. 44/236, 1989). It urged allthe countries for implementing theInternational Framework of Action of theIDNDR (Res.45/185, 1990) and to establishNational Committees.

In response to the call by UN, Nepalconstituted the IDNDR National Committeein 1990 under the chairmanship of theHon’ble Home Minister. The committeewas further expanded in February 1994. TheIDNDR National Committee providedleadership to various initiatives that weregeared towards better disaster managementand policy and plan formulation. One ofkey initiatives that was led by IDNDRNational Committee was the formulation ofNational Action Plan for DisasterManagement in Nepal in 1994. Thepreliminary plan was presented during theWorld Conference on Disaster Managementin Yokohama, Japan, 23-27 May 1994.

Beside the IDNDR initiative led bygovernment, Nepal Geological Society, aprofessional society of geologists,seismologists, geophysicists etc., separatelyformed NGS-IDNDR Council among thescientists to compliment IDNDR NationalCommittee. Later, in February 1994, as aresult of continuous advocacy and joint work

Box 1.3: Tokyo Declaration for International Decade for NaturalDisaster Reduction"We, the Ad Hoc International Group of Expertsfor the International Decade for Natural DisasterReduction, hereby declare the following:

Throughout history, mankind has lived under thethreat of natural disasters. Millions of lives havebeen lost in recent decades, with untold humansuffering and property damage as well as setbacksto development efforts. Indeed, the situation isgrowing worse. Vulnerability to natural disastersis rising due to population growth, urbanisationof industry and infrastructure in disaster-proneareas. But we now have improved capacity toconfront the problem. Fatalism is no longeracceptable; it is time to bring the full force ofscientific and technological advancement toreduce the human tragedy and economic loss ofnatural disasters.

This concept is the United Nations GeneralAssembly decision, in its Resolution 42/169 of 11December 1987, to designate the 1990s as anInternational Decade in which the worldcommunity joins to cooperate on natural disasterreduction.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, whowas asked to develop a framework to attain theobjective and goals of the Decade, appointed ourcommittee, the Ad Hoc International Group ofExperts. We are 25 scientists and technical expertsdrawn from throughout the world andrepresenting the spectrum of disciplines engagedin disaster reduction. We will soon submit outreport to the Secretary-General, but today wewish to call to the world's attention our commonconviction that millions of lives can be saved,hundreds of millions protected from tragedy, andhundreds of billions of dollars saved as a resultof the International Decade.

Since our first meeting in Geneva in July 1988,there have been floods in the Sudan andBangladesh, hurricanes Gilbert and Juana in theCaribbean and Central America, destructiveearthquakes in China, India, Nepal and the USSR,and severe drought and locust infestations inAfrica. The post-disaster response of theinternational community has been generous. Butobserving these and other tragedic events hasconvinced us of the need for increased efforts indisaster planning, preparedness, and prevention.

| 25


Ch

ap

ter

1

by NGS-IDNDR Council, the governmentdecided to include four members NepalGeological Society (NGS), Nepal Engineers’Association (NEA), Department of Mines& Geology (DMG), and TribhubanUniversity (TU) from the scientificcommunity to the National Committee. Therole of NGS-IDNDR Council was visiblemainly during the preparation of NationalReport and National Action Plan to bepresented in the Yokohama Conference.

The NGS-IDNDR Council aimed at

providing adequate support to IDNDRNational Committee in formulating andexecuting various hazard reduction nationalprograms as well as increasing the awarenessamong the people regarding the possibilitiesof mitigating hazards.

Major Activities under IDNDR

The NGS-IDNDR Council organized firstone day seminar cum workshop on“Geologic Hazards, Environment and Man-made structures” on October 7, 1991 tocommemorate the IDNDR Day. Since then,

=== xfdL ef}uf]lns / 6f]kf]u|flkmsn b[li6sf]0fn] h'g l:yltdf 5f}+ Tof] vfln j}1flgs / k|ljlwsx?sf] dfq ;/f]sf/sf] ljifoxf]Og . === === === xfdLnfO{ yfxf 5 ls k|s[lt Tolt l56f] ablnb}g t/ o;nfO{ dflg;sf nflu pkof]uL agfpg ;lsG5 h;sf]nflu dg'ios} ;[hgzLntf cfjZos x'G5 . o;/L x]bf{ dnfO{ nfU5 xfdLn] xfd|f] lsl;dn] 1fg xfl;n gu/L ;'v} 5}g h;sfnflu g]kfnsf k|ljlwsx? ;dy{ x'g\'x'G5 / xfdLn] kfO{ cfPsf] cGt/f{li6«o ;xof]u klg lng' k5{ . === === === clxn] g]kfn k'gMlgdf{0fsf] r/0faf6 u'h|b} u/]sf] a]nfdf k|fljlws k|zf;s / gLlt lgdf{tfx? / vf;u/L /fhgLlts txdf lgb]{zgsf] cfjZosx'G5, ;dGjo x'g'k5{, ljrf/sf] cfbfg–k|bfg x'g}k5{ . ===

Mr. D.N. Dhungana, Speaker, House of RepresentativesRemarks as the Chief Guest during IDNDR National Workshop, October 7, 1991

Box 1.4: Excerpts from remarks during first IDNDR day celebrationin Nepal

the private sector to support international andregional cooperation on disaster-related activitiesand to contribute to the transfer of disaster-reduction technology, particularly in disasterprone developing countries.

The Decade is an opportunity for action, bothimmediate and long-term. Specific projects canbe implemented immediately to help achieve asafer world. Implementation of the Decaderequires commitment of the internationalcommunity to enhance the level of technicalcooperation, particularly with regard to thedeveloping countries. The group calls for allcountries to form national committees to planfor and coordinate national efforts. Is suggeststhat the United Nations General Assemblyconsider the establishment of a uniquecooperative mechanism, supported byextrabudgetary resources, that brings togetherthe diverse groups that can contribute to theDecade. It seeks the commitment of theinternational community to assure the availabilityof resources to implement this important activity.

The Group is confident that through these actionsmankind will capture the promise of enhancedsecurity and prosperity".

We believe that the Decade is a moral imperative.It is the first coordinated effort to prevent theunnecessary loss of life from natural hazards. Italso makes practical sense. The Decade is anopportunity for the world community, in a spiritof global cooperation, to use the considerableexisting scientific and technical knowledge toalleviate human suffering and enhance economicsecurity. In implementing the Decade, thevulnerability of developing counties must be ofspecial concern.

Thus we, the Ad Hoc International Group ofExperts, call on;

The People of the world, as well as theirgovernments, to work toward greater securityagainst natural disaster;

The governments of all countries to participateactively in the Decade by educating and trainingtheir citizens to increase awareness, by enhancingsocial preparedness, by integrating disasterconsciousness into their developmentprogrammes, and by making available the powerof sciences and technology to reduce disasterloss;

The United Nations, scientific and technologicalinstitutions, nongovernmental organizations, and

26 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

NGS-IDNDR Council organized suchseminar and workshop every year tocommemorate the IDNDR Day (2ndWednesday of October). Table 1.3 providesthe list of IDNDR Day programs organizedevery year (1991-1999).

In addition, several other interaction,professional discussions, training andawareness programs were organized as partof the IDNDR. Celebration of IDNDRDay was the culmination of all activitiesconducted throughout the year. Suchinteraction, awareness and training programswere geared towards enhancing knowledgeand understanding on the hazards, disastersand risk and help frame a comprehensiveconcept of disaster reduction in the country.

Contributions and Impacts

Several awareness and training programs inthe form of meetings, seminars, workshopsand conferences were organized during theperiod, which were instrumental inenhancing general understanding on thefeasibility of disaster risk reduction. Thediscourses conducted were capable ofimproving the understanding on hazards,vulnerabilities, risk and disasters. Coherencein understanding on technicalities of various

hazards such as landslides, floods, erosion,earthquakes was achieved. The activitieshelped educate and change the psyche ofNepalese engineers, scientists, andprofessionals on disaster risk reduction andhelped to highlight the importance and needof scientific and academic researches ondisaster risk reduction in Nepal.

The important achievements and lessonsare captured in the National Report of Nepalprepared for the IDNDR RegionalConference, 22-26 February 1999, Bangkok,Thailand. Although Nepal was somehowlate in picking up the momentum, thecountry made great strides towards buildingnational capabilities in disaster managementduring the concluding Decade. There havebeen several efforts in the national scaletowards meeting the goal of disasterreduction. A national outlook regarding thenecessities and ways of disaster reductionwas crystallized during the period. This wasa big achievement.

Therefore, although the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction(IDNDR) came to a close, it was realizedthat the concept, vision and the types ofefforts made by IDNDR should becontinued.

Year1991

1992

19931994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

DateOctober 7

October 14

October 13October 5

October 11

October 9

October 6

October 14

October 13

ThemeOne day seminar cum workshop on “Geologic Hazards, Environment andMan-made Structures”One day seminar on “Geological Hazards and Environmental Problems inNepal”One day seminar on “Geo-scientific Inputs in Natural Disaster ManagementOne-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “Geo-scientific Inputs inPreparedness and Mitigation of Natural Disaster”One-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “Prevention of Natural Disasters:Challenges to Scientific Communities in NepalOne-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “Understanding Our PhysicalEnvironment: Key to Natural Disaster Reduction”One-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “Natural Disaster Reduction inNepal: Experience and Challenges”One-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “ Natural Disaster Preventionand the Media: Prevention Begins with Information”One-day National Meeting cum Seminar on “Prevention Pays”

Source: Bulletin of Nepal Geological Society | 27

Table 1.3: IDNDR Day celebration (1991-1999)


Ch

ap

ter

1

of] ;ef IDNDR Day '95 sf lbg lgDg k|:tfjx? Kfl/tub{5 M

!= IDNDR Day '94 sf] ;efn] kfl/t u/]sf ;Dk"0f{k|:tfjx?nfO{ sfof{Gjog ug{ ;DalGwt lgsfox?;dIf k'gM cg'/f]w ub{5 .

@= g]kfn ;/sf/ åf/f k|fs[lts k|sf]k Go"lgs/0f ;DalGwckgfOPsf /fli6«o sfo{qmdx? k|lt pT;flxt x'Fb} k|fs[ltsk|sf]k Go"lgs/0fsf nflu IDNDR NATIONALCOMMITTEE åf/f th'{df ul/Psf] NATIONAL ACTIONPLAN nfO{ oyfzL3| nfu' ug{ g]kfn ;/sf/ ;dIfcg'/f]w ub{5 .

#= d'n'ssf] nflu th'{df ul/Psf] /fli6«o lgdf{0f ;+lxtfnfu' ug]{ tkm{ cfjzos sf/jfxLsf nflu g]kfn ;/sf/;dIf cg'/f]w ub{5 .

$= k|fs[lts k|sf]ksf] ;+be{df dlxnf If]q clt kLl8t x'g]dfq xf]Og, oyfy{df dlxnfx?n] cfˆgf] s[ofsnfkåf/fk|ToIf jf k/f]IftM kof{j/0f ;+/If0f tyf k|fs[lts k|sf]klgjf/0fsf ;fy} k|sf]k kl5sf] ;fdfGoLs/0f k|s[ofdfctL dxTjk"0f{ of]ubfg ub}{ cfPsf 5g\ . t;y{ k|fs[ltsk|sf]k Go"lgs/0fsf ;Dk"0f{ /fli6«o k|of;x?dfdlxnfj[Gbsf] uxgtd of]ubfgsf] ;d'lrt pkof]u

ug{sf nflu pgLx?sf] Jofks ;xeflutf u/fOg'k5{ .

%= k|fs[lts k|sf]kn] afnaflnsfx?df ctL tLj| c;/kfb{5 . pgLx?nfO{ k|fs[lts k|sf]kaf6 arfO{ ;'vdoafNosfn k|bfg ug'{ ;dfhsf] bfoLTj xf] . afnaflnsfx?d'n'ssf nflu clt dxTjk"0f{ ;DklQ x'g . pgLx?nfO{k|fs[lts k|sf]k c;/ Go"lgs/0f ;DalGw hfgsf/LljBfno dfkm{t lbP/ ;dfhn] bL3{sflng pknlAw k|fKtug{ ;Sb5 . k|fs[lts k|sf]k Go"lgs/0f tkm{ ul/g]/fli6«o r]i6fdf o; k|sf/sf sfo{qmddf oyflrg hf]8lbg' cfjZos 5 .

^= g]kfndf k|s[lts k|sf]k Go"gLs/0fsf nflu ctL cfjZosHAZARD MAPPING tyf RISK ASSESSMENT ;DalGwsfdx? ug{ ;Sg] tyf pTkfb Go"lgs/0fsf pkfox?kQf] nufO{ ltgsf] sfo{Gjog ug{ ;Sg] Ifdtf cfwf/e"t?kdf ljsl;t e} ;s]sf] 5 . t/ 1fg, ;Lksf][ ;d'lrtpkof]u tyf pknAw hgzlQmsf] pko'Qm k/Lrfngsf]If]qdf lgs} w]/} ;\wf/sf] cfjZostf b]lvG5 . o; tkm{cfjZos Wofg lbO{ d'n'sd} pknAw j}1flgs tyfk|ljlw1x?sf] plrt pkof]u ug{sf nflu ;DalGwt ;Dk"0f{lgsfox?df cg'/f]w ul/G5 .

Box 1.5: Resolution of 1995 IDNDR Day

28 |

... There is another hindrance also. The official national term for Natural Disaster is "b}jL k|sf]k" whichis largely a misnomer. I think that it has been wrongly taken up. Literally it means "Godly very greatanger". At the present level of knowledge of various natural phenomena I don’t think we still shouldcontinue calling it "Anger of God". The case here is not this. The question may not be only the wording,but the effect of the wording. Etymology itself, I feel, is hindering against our efforts. So I call uponall of you to refrain from using this word "b}jL k|sf]k" for describing Natural Disasters or Natural Hazards.It should no longer be tolerated because this is what IDNDR calls to fight against. ... ... ... The managementof natural disaster should include four steps prediction, assessment of risks, preparedness plan andmanagement of disaster itself. Till now the focus is only on the post disaster relief operation andclearing up only. This is wrong and against IDNDR concept. The focus should be shifted from post-disaster to pre-disaster activity ...”

Mr. Amod Mani Dixit, Co-ordinator NGS-IDNDR CouncilRemarks during IDNDR National Workshop, October 7, 1991

Box 1.6: Excerpts from remarks during first IDNDR daycelebration in Nepal

Formulation of National Action Planon Disaster Management in NepalThe IDNDR National Committee felt theneed of preparing a practical and effectiveaction plan on disaster management asprevious efforts were concentrated mainlyon the rescue and relief operations. Themeeting of IDNDR National Committeeheld on February 10, 1994 formed four coregroups, comprising of experts, adminis-trators, security personnel, & academicians,

to prepare a National Action Plan forDisaster Management. The four core groupswere related to Disaster Preparedness,Disaster Response, Rehabilitation andReconstruction, and Disaster Mitigation.The core groups through a series of meetingsand mini-workshops during a period ofapproximately 4 months prepared apreliminary National Action Plan. Thepreliminary action plan was prepared basedmainly on the recommendations made by

Ch

ap

ter 1

the Country Workshop (October 31-3November 1993) and National Conference(4 November 1993) on DisasterManagement. The plan also referred to theexisting Comprehensive Plan for DisasterManagement in Nepal. This preliminary planwas presented to the World Conference onDisaster Management, Yokohama, Japan,1994.

Later, the IDNDR National Committee feltthe need of incorporating YokohamaStrategy in National Action Plan andsimplifying the preliminary draft in order toadopt a more practicable and implementableAction Plan on Disaster Management.Hence, IDNDR National Committee finallyprepared an Action Plan on DisasterManagement on July 13, 1995 and submittedit to Nepal Government for its approval.Later, the Government of Nepal onFebruary 18, 1996 endorsed this plan as the

| 29

"National Action Plan on DisasterManagement in Nepal".While implementing the plan, with a viewto make it easier and more effective, someamendments were made by IDNDR,National Committee on 29 Sept. 1996 whichincluded:• The executing agency for Flood Hazard

Mapping and establishment of FloodForecasting & Warning System is to bethe Department of Hydrology &Meteorology instead of Department ofIrrigation.

• As a part of Disaster Mitigation ActionPlan, policies on – (i) prevention &preparedness, (ii) participation of NGOs,private sector and local communities and(iii) incorporating environmental impactstudy in development plan, has to becarried out by Ministry of Populationand Environment instead of CDRC;

A. National Action Plan on DisasterPreparednessThe national action plan on disaster preparednesspresented in the form of a matrix indicatedpriority item group, activities, the time scheduleand the executing agencies with specificcooperating agencies.

The recommended activities involved theformation of appropriate institutionalarrangements in terms of National DisasterManagement Council at policy level, a NationalDisaster Management Centre at the centralexecutive level and various disaster managementcommittees at regional, district and village levelfor effective implementation. The plan alsoincluded the enactment of appropriate legislationwith specified responsibilities to concernedagencies. The action plan also proposed theincorporation of disaster management as multi-sectoral activities in the five year developmentplan. The emphasis had been given to thepreparation of hazard assessment and mappingof the recurring disasters in Nepal like earthquake,flood, landslides, GLOFs etc. The activities furtherspecified the selected areas in this concern so asto attain the objectives in the remaining part ofthe decade.

Several arrangements had been recommended

in the context of capacity building at local levelsuch as Public Awareness Programmes, Rehearsal,Drills, and Stockpiling of emergency reliefmaterials. The environmental & geological studieshad been prioritized.

B. National Action Plan on Disaster ResponseAs the activities of disaster response start onlyafter a disaster has struck in certain area, theAction Plan was prepared as a part ofpreparedness for actual response operations.This action plan was prepared with theassumption that about 15000 families (with anaverage of 6 members in a family) would beaffected by disaster every year. Considering thissize, the items and activities included in this actionplan should be carried out so as to build thecapability of disaster management by the end of2000 A.D. In this context equipment necessaryfor disaster response activities had beenrecommended.

The Disaster Response Action Plan includedfollowing activities:• Evacuation, Search and Rescue• Communication and Transportation• Temporary Settlement• Health, Nutrition, and Sanitation:

Box 1.7: Components of National Action Plan 1996


Ch

ap

ter

1

while Ministry of Land Reform &Management has to be the co-operatingagency for (i) the preparation of landuse plan, (ii) rehabilitation plan and (iii)reduction programmes.

• To monitor the execution of the actionplan, a Monitoring and EvaluationCommittee comprised of representativesfrom Ministry of Home Affairs, NationalPlanning Commission, Ministry ofFinance, Ministry of Water Resources,Ministry of Industry (Department ofMines and Geology), Nepal Red CrossSociety and Nepal Army has beenconstituted.

The action plan was an ambitious document.Even though, the Government accepted theplan as a planning document and committedtowards its fulfilment, it still was in the formof a wishful "shopping list" rather than anactual action plan since it did not spell outthe required mechanism for its implem-

entation, monitoring, updating and co-ordination. However, the sheer fact thatsuch a document prepared and accepted forimplementation was itself a great step. Thecountry came out of the traditional fatalisticapproach towards natural disaster and aspiredto interact with the disasters by beingprepared towards it, by adapting mitigationmeasures.

It should be noted that several of the itemslisted were already being implemented bythe line agencies and departments of theGovernment. The efforts made jointly bythe UN-DMT and the internationalcommunity in co-operation with theGovernment in creating Working Groupsto prepare working plans and guidelines fordisaster-response could serve as the modelfor the future course to be taken for otheraspects for disaster management such asmitigation and rehabilitation/reconstruction.

30 |

C. National Action Plan on DisasterReconstruction and Rehabilitation Action

The action plan called for the development ofstandard damage assessment format for all typesof natural disasters with formation of apermanent damage assessment team at centralas well as local level. There is alsorecommendation on compiling and disseminatingthe information on extent of damages. The actionplan also included rehabilitation andreconstruction planning with emphasis oncreating permanent committees for such activitiescentrally and locally. Concept of sectorwise expertgroup to review the information of damageassessment and to prepare guidelines forrehabilitation and reconstruction works wasintroduced.

It was also envisioned to implement incomegenerating programmes for sustainablerehabilitation. For that, feasibility study wasthought to be conducted to find out the localtrends and availability of local resources. A specialdirective for loans to the disaster victims withsubsidized interest rates was also recommended.The action plan also emphasized the need ofcarrying out regular capability assessment andinventory preparation at various levels includingthe resources of local community and NGOs.

D. National Action Plan on Disaster Mitigation

The Action Plan recommended the identificationand recognition of the major natural hazards bythe government for proper management andalso for the direction of effective mitigationmeasures. The need of allocating funds in nationalbudget for disaster management and mitigationprogramme was emphasized. Also, it wasconceptualized to form special disaster cell in theorganization of every key disaster related agency.

From the strategies of IDNDR World Conference1994, following activities had been included inthe Action Plan.

• Risk assessment for development planning

• Policies on the role of NGOs, local community,private sector and also policies on peoples'participation especially women and sociallydisadvantaged groups.

• Incorporation of Environment ImpactAssessment for disaster reduction indevelopment planning.

• Promotion of regional and sub-regional co-operation between countries exposed tosame types of hazards.

• Establishment of documentation centre ondisaster reduction activities.

Ch

ap

ter 1

| 31

2005 Kobe World Conference and itsrelevance to NepalWorld Conference on Disaster Reduction(WCDR) was organized in Kobe, Hyogo,Japan, from 18 to 22 January 2005. TheConference was to take stock of progressin disaster risk reduction accomplished sincethe Yokohama Conference of 1994 and tomake plans for the next ten years. Theconference was attended by delegates fromgovernment and non-governmentorganizations from 168 countries includingNepal. The conference adopted a 10-yearplan to make the world safer from naturalhazards.

The WCDR was composed of three mainprocesses, Intergovernmental segment;Thematic segment; and Public Forum. TheIntergovernmental segment, with delegationsfrom more than 160 Member States,provided the venue for delegates to makegeneral statements on the issues of disasterreduction. The Thematic Segment wasformatted to complement the discussionson the programme outcome at theintergovernmental level. The public forum,open to the general public and Conferenceparticipants, consisted of Workshops,Exhibition booths, and Poster Sessions.

The following four documents are the mainoutcome of the World Conference onDisaster Reduction. The four documentsrepresenting a strong commitment of theinternational community to address disasterreduction and to engage in a determined,results-oriented plan of action for the nextdecade are the outcomes of the conference.1. Review of the Yokohama Strategy and

Plan of Action for a Safer World2. Hyogo Declaration3. Hyogo Framework of Action 2005-2015:

Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters

4. Common Statement of the SpecialSession on the Indian Ocean Disaster:risk reduction for a safer future

Out of the four documents the HyogoFramework of Action (HFA) is a globalblueprint for disaster risk reduction effortsduring the next decade. Its goal is tosubstantially reduce disaster losses by 2015– in lives, and in the social, economic, andenvironmental assets of communities andcountries. Therefore, the priorities of HFAare as follows:• Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a

national and local priority with a stronginstitutional basis for implementation.

• Identify, assess and monitor disaster risksand enhance early warning.

• Use knowledge, innovation and educationto build a culture of safety and resilienceat all levels.

• Reduce the underlying risk factors.• Strengthen disaster preparedness for

effective response at all levelsThese five priority areas of HFA have beenguiding the disaster risk management effortsin Nepal.

A total of 19 professionals from differentgovernment (MoHA, MoHP, KMC) andnon-government (NRCS, NSET, ICIMOD,ITDG) organizations attended the WCDRfrom Nepal. The professionals from Nepalmade presentations and key note addressesin several sessions during the conference.Nepal's exposure to this conference washighly beneficial in terms of aligning thecountry to the global understanding onDRM express Nepal's committment towardseffective DRR and also to bring theexperiences and lessons from other countriesaround the world. The HFA documentshave been effective tools in getting policyguidance for subsequent policy discusionsin Nepal.

Asian Ministerial ConferencesThe Asian Ministerial Conferences onDisaster Risk Reduction organized everytwo years since 2005 at Asian Governments’initiative, represent unique opportunities for


Ch

ap

ter

1

32 |

Ministers in charge of disaster riskmanagement from the Asia and Pacificregion to reaffirm their commitment toHyogo Framework for Action (HFA)implementation and to exchange valuableexperiences on successful practices andinnovative approaches in implementingHFA’s five priorities for action at the nationaland local levels.

The First Asian Ministerial Conference onDisaster Risk Reduction, organized by theGovernment of China (Beijing, September2005), adopted the Beijing Action forDisaster Risk Reduction to promote thenewly-adopted HFA and to seek AsianGovernments' commitment and actions toimplement disaster risk reduction, includingthrough the strengthening of existing keyregional cooperation mechanisms.

The Second Conference (New Delhi, India,November 2007) reaffirmed Governments’commitment to HFA and agreed to expandfurther the biennial Asian MinisterialConference on Disaster Risk Reduction asthe Regional Platform with participation ofthe National Governments, regional andsub-regional organizations, UN Agencies,and other stakeholders including the civilsociety, scientific and technical organizations,the private sector and the media.

Adopting the Kuala Lumpur Declaration,the Third Ministerial Conference wassuccessfully convened by the Governmentof Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, December2008) and the overarching theme of theConference was “Multi-stakeholderPartnership for Disaster Risk Reduction inthe Asia and Pacific region,” with a particularfocus on Public Private Partnership forDisaster Risk Reduction and community-based disaster risk reduction activities.

The Fourth Asian Ministerial Conferenceon Disaster Risk Reduction (AMCDRR)was successfully convened in Incheon,Republic of Korea, on 25-28 October 2010

and the overarching theme of the conferencewas "Disaster Risk Reduction for ClimateChange Adaptation", with a particular focuson 1) the convergence of DRR and climatechange adaptation and 2) availableinformation technology and greentechnology. Government of Nepal has beenparticipating in all ministerial conference.The participation helped much to gain fromthe dialogue at regional level and also tocontribute.

Global Platform for Disaster RiskReductionThe Global Platform for Disaster RiskReduction is a biennial forum forinformation exchange, discussion of latestdevelopment and knowledge and partnershipbuilding across sectors, with the goal toimprove implementation of disaster riskreduction through better communicationand coordination amongst stakeholders. Itis for government representatives, NGOs,sc ient is ts, pract i t ioners, and UNorganizations to share experiences andformulate strategic guidance and advice forthe implementation of the HFA.

The Global Platform is managed by the UNInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction.It is the world's foremost gathering ofstakeholders committed to reducing disasterrisk and building the resilience ofcommunities and nations. A core functionof the Global Platform is to support theimplementation of the Hyogo Frameworkof Action. The Global Platform for DisasterReduction was established in 2007 and takesplace every two years.

This first session of the Global Platformfor Disaster Risk Reduction held in Geneva,Switzerland, 5-7 June 2007 was convenedon the basis of guidance contained in theresolution of the General Assembly on theISDR that calls for the adoption bygovernments of the Hyogo Framework andthat recognizes the Global Platform as a

Ch

ap

ter 1

successor mechanism to the Inter-AgencyTask Force for Disaster Reduction.

National practitioners and other stakeholdershave repeatedly expressed the desire to havea mechanism through which they canexchange their experiences in disaster riskreduction and access information on howother countries addressed particularchallenges in the implementation of theHyogo Framework. The Global Platformhas been set up to serve this need, and it isexpected to become the main global forumfor all parties involved in disaster riskreduction, namely governments, UNagencies, international financial institutions,regional bodies, civil society, the privatesector, and the scientific and academiccommunities. It will provide advocacy foreffective action to reduce disaster risks, willexpand the political space devoted to theissue, and will contribute to the achievementof the Millennium Development Goalsparticularly in respect to poverty reductionand environmental sustainability.

Nepal has been participating in the GlobalPlatform and benefitting much for theinternational practices in policies, plans andprograms for disaster risk reduction.

Views from the FrontlineViews from the Frontline (VFL) is an action-research project undertaken by civil societystakeholders in conjunction with governmentbodies. It aims at measuring progress towardsimplementation of the Hyogo Frameworkfor Action (HFA) at the local level throughthe participation of different stakeholders

across developing countries and regions.The main goal of ‘Views from the Frontline’is to support the effective implementationof the HFA to build the resilience ofvulnerable people and communities at-riskto disasters. This independent review is beingcoordinated by the Global Network forDisaster Reduction (GN) and implementedby civil society actors. It seeks to complementthe biennial national level HFA Monitoringand Progress Review being facilitated andcoordinated by the UN-ISDR.

The first edition of VFL in 2009 showedthat Disaster Risk Reduction and theprogress of implementation of HFA at locallevel in Nepal are in the preliminary phaseand are not up to the mark. 2009,presentation of views from over 7000respondents from 48 countries made a majorimpact at the UN 'Global Platform forDisaster Risk Reduction', and at the locallevel, where dialogue, collaboration andaction have been promoted. VFL 2009showed that progress in establishing nationalpolicies and legislation had not generatedwidespread changes in local practices. Basedon this, VFL2011 was focused on localgovernance, which is critical to effectiveimplementation of policy facilitation andprovision of necessary resources; leading tothe HFA achieving real impact on theground, where people at risk live, eat andwork. VFL 2011 was initiated in November2010 in Nepal. The findings and conclusionsof the current study, of which Nepal is apart, is prepared with the aim of presentingthe local stakeholders perspective at globallevel.

" …Building a culture of prevention is not easy. While the costs of prevention have to bepaid in the present, its benefits lie in a distant future. Moreover, the benefits are not

tangible; they are the disasters that did NOT happen.

“Kofi Annan, «Facing the Humantarian Challenge »Towards a Culture of Prevention”, UNGA, A/54/1

| 33


Ch

ap

ter

1

Initiatives by Civil SocietyOrganizationsEstablishment of DisasterManagement Section in NRCSThe Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) hasbeen involved in disaster response since itsinception in 1963. It represents as an ex-officio member in Central, Regional andDistrict level Natural Disaster ReliefCommittees headed by Minister of HomeAffairs, Regional Administrator and ChiefDistrict Officer respectively. The NRCSplays auxiliary role to the government ofNepal and it has been actively involved informulating and implementing national leveldisaster management policies, strategies,plans and programs. In addition, it has beenintensively involved in strengthening andinstitutionalizing Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR) activities in Nepal.Besides its continued engagement inrendering response services, NRCS starteddisaster preparedness activities throughstrengthening and expanding network ofwarehouses in 1975. NRCS startedCommunity Based Disaster Preparednessinitiatives in 1997 and since then it has beenimplementing Community Based DisasterRisk Reduction programs aiming tocontribute towards building resilientcommunities to be prepared for, cope withand respond to disasters.Taken global, regional and national plansand priorities into consideration, the NRCShas developed its' five year developmentplan, DM policy, Disaster ManagementStrategic Framework for scaling-up its'Disaster Management initiatives throughoutthe country. The prevailing DM policy hasclearly given mandate for NRCS in allcomponents of the DM cycle particularlyin i) Disaster Risk Reduction, ii) DisasterResponse and iii) Post Disaster Recoveryactivities. The DM strategic mission ofNRCS is to deliver quality services targetingto most vulnerable population and scale upits' interventions for building safer and moreresilient communities by mobilizing its'

34 |

nationwide networks in partnership withcommunities and other stakeholders. TheDisaster Management Strategic Framework(2010-2015) of NRCS covers four mainstrategic directions such as i) DisasterManagement Planning, ii) Disaster RiskReduction, iii) Response for natural Disastersand Population Movement and iv) Recoveryfor Natural Disasters and PopulationMovements and additional three enablingdirections such as i) OrganizationalPreparedness, ii) Coordination andPartnership and iii) Advocacy.The NRCS is the only organization that hasits' own institutional set up such as NationalHeadquarter at central level, RegionalCoordination Committees in each of all fiveregions, District Chapters in each of all 75districts and 1,339 Sub-chapters atMunicipal/VDC levels. Besides, it has beenmanaging 12 warehouses in different strategiclocations in the country. It has trained humanresources at the headquarters and districtlevel in national, regional and global DMcompetencies such as Field Assessment andCoordination Team (FACT), EmergencyRelief Unit (ERU), Regional DisasterResponse Team (RDRT), National DisasterResponse Team (NDRT), District DisasterResponse Team (DDRT), First Aid, FirstAid tra iners, Search and Rescue(CADRE/LSAR), Dead Body Management,WASH, Shelter, PSP and RFL. The NationalDisaster Response Framework has givenspecific mandate to NRCS for respondingto emergenciesThe NRCS has been implementing DisasterRisk Reduction Programmes targeting tovulnerable communities. NRCS has alsobeen actively engaged in the Nepal RiskReduction Consortium as the member ofsteering committee and participating indifferent flagships as the member of advisorycommittees. In an average, NRCS providesrelief services to 7,000 to 10,000 familiesaffected by floods, landslides, fires, epidemicsand earthquake in an annual basis. As andwhen needed, the NRCS provides sectorspecific relief services such as emergencyhealth, WASH, Shelter etc in time of disaster.(For detail, www.nrcs.org).

Ch

ap

ter 1

(GHI), as the Nepal national project of theAsian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program(AUDMP) implemented by the AsianDisaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC).

KVERMP included a wide variety ofactivities aimed at beginning a self-sustainingearthquake risk management program forKathmandu Valley. Project componentsincluded:

1) development of an earthquake scenarioand an action plan for earthquake riskmanagement in the Kathmandu Valley,

2) a school earthquake safety program, and

3) awareness raising and institutionalstrengthening.

The project was implemented with strongparticipation by national governmentagencies, municipal governments,professional societies, academic institutions,schools, and international agencies presentin Kathmandu Valley in advisory committees,various workshops, seminars, interviews andjoint programs.

The major accomplishment of the projectwas development of an earthquake damagescenario and an action plan for reducing theseismic risk of the valley. The action planwas a consensus document depicting rolesand responsibilities of all concernedinstitutions in managing the seismic risk ofKathmandu. School Earthquake SafetyProgram (SESP) was another majoraccomplishment. It established technicaland social feasibility and also the affordabilityof seismic improvement of school buildings.SESP is now established as a widely acceptedconcept which not only helps build theschool buildings stronger, but also serves asan awareness raising tool that ultimatelymakes the entire community safer againstearthquake. Training of masons inearthquake safe construction and dissemi-nating the earthquake safety information tochildren, teachers, parents and community

| 35

Establishment of NSET andImplementation of KVERMPFew key professionals who worked duringthe response after 1988 earthquake realizedthat there is tremendous lack of awarenessamong the common people and policy/decision makers about the earthquake risksof Nepal and the possible ways to mitigateit.

Also, there is significant gap in terms ofpreparation of knowledge about saferconstruction practices. They also realizedthat the huge tasks of awareness raising andtechnology promotion can not be done bygovernment institutions only. Hence, theneed of a civil society organization tosupport government in this direction wasfelt. With this realization, the group ofprofessionals which included seismologists,university professors, civil engineers andjournalists through a meeting held on June18, 1993 founded National Society forEarthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET). Themain purpose of establishing theorganization was “to foster the advancementof science and practice of earthquakeengineering and technology for mitigatingthe earthquake risk and increasing the seismicsafety, to enhance professionalism,professional engineering and scientific ethics,and to further the objectives of theInternational Association for EarthquakeEngineering as applicable to Nepal”.

Later in 1998, NSET formulated its vision,mission and strategic objectives to furtheract more effectively towards achieving thegoal of the organization. NSET has visionto achieve “Earthquake Safe Communitiesin Nepal by 2020”.

NSET implemented its first and remarkableproject Kathmandu Valley Earthquake RiskManagement Project (KVERMP) duringSeptember 1997 - December 1999 inassociation with GeoHazards International


Ch

ap

ter

1

A simple loss estimation study for KathmanduValley was conducted as part of the KathmanduValley Earthquake Risk Management Project(KVERMP). This loss estimation study examinedwhat the consequences would be if the 1934earthquake shaking were to occur in modern dayKathmandu Valley. The next earthquake toseverely damage Kathmandu Valley will not havethe same magnitude and location as the 1934event. However, it is quite reasonable to assumethat the next large earthquake to affectKathmandu Valley will have approximately thesame shaking pattern within the valley due tosoft soil beneath the valley’s surface.

Some results of KVERMP’s loss estimation studyare presented below to help clarify the extent ofthe problem that Kathmandu Valley faces. Thisloss estimation is not a forecast of what willhappen in the future, and should be viewed onlyas a tool to help make decisions about reducingKathmandu Valley’s earthquake risk.

The Loss Estimation

The loss estimation study indicates that massivedamage can be expected to Kathmandu Valley’sbuildings, structures and population if the shakingof 1934 were to repeat.

Damage to Buildings

A rough estimation of damage to buildings wasconducted by KVERMP using information abouttypical construction types found in KathmanduValley which was collected and analyzed whiledeveloping the Nepalese building code. As manyas 60 percent of all buildings in Kathmandu Valleyare likely to be damaged heavily, many beyond repair. Bhaktapur, which suffered the worst damage in 1934, has historically suffered morethan the rest of the valley in earthquakes, possiblybecause of its soil conditions. As many as 75percent of all buildings in Bhaktapur are likely tobe heavily damaged.

Damage to Transportation Network

In addition to building damage, it is estimatedthat almost half of the bridges in the valley couldbe impassable, and that 10 percent of paved roadswill have moderate damage, such as deep cracksor subsidence. In addition, many of the narroweststreets in the valley will be blocked by debris fromdamaged buildings. The city of Bhaktapur maynot be accessible from Kathmandu or Lalitpurbecause of road and bridge damage. The bridgesconnecting Kathmandu and Lalitpur to each other

are also at risk of liquefaction induced damage.Tribhuvan International Airport is surrounded byliquefaction prone areas. This means that theairport may be isolated from the rest ofKathmandu Valley, limiting emergency aid fromoutside of the valley.

Damage to Utilities

Approximately 95 percent of water pipes and 50percent of other water system components(pumping stations, treatment plants, etc.) couldbe damaged seriously. Almost all telephoneexchange buildings and 60 percent of telephonelines are likely to be damaged, requiring significantto moderate repair to be operational.Approximately 40 percent of electric lines and all electric substations are likely to be damaged.It could take one month after an earthquake for electricity and telephone utilities to beoperational. Water systems will require muchmore time to repair. It is estimated that mostparts of the valley will be without piped watersupply for several months and several areas couldremain without service for over one year.

Deaths, Injuries, and Homelessness

Death and injury expectations are similarlyshocking. Simply applying the percentage of thepopulation killed or injured in the 1934 earthquaketo the population of the valley today results in anestimate of 22,000 deaths and 25,000 injuriesrequiring hospitalization. Applying more recentearthquake casualty figures from citiescomparable to Kathmandu Valley results in anestimate of 40,000 deaths and 95,000 injuries inKathmandu Valley’s next major earthquake.

An additional 600,000 to 900,000 residents ofKathmandu Valley are expected to be lefthomeless by the earthquake due to damagedbuildings or fear of being in their homes. Theexisting government medical facilities inKathmandu have a total of about 2,200 beds,most of which are full under non-emergencyconditions. An additional 3,500 patients could be accommodated on floors or outside space around hospitals. In California and Japan,earthquake shaking on MMI IX are generallybelieved to make at least 50 percent of hospitalbeds unusable, due to structural problems(building collapse) or non-structural problems(e.g. fallen bookshelves or loss of electricalpower). There will be a major shortage of spacefor medical treatment in Kathmandu Valley.

Box 1.8: Earthquake scenario of Kathmandu Valley

36 |

Source: Earthquake Scenario of Kathmandu Valley, NSET 1999

Ch

ap

ter 1

| 37

at large are the strongest parts of SESPwhich is found as the start of a selfreplicating process. The KVERMP alsohelped institutionalise the seismic safetyconsideration with several policy shifts - atNSET’s request, the government designatedJanuary 15 as the Earthquake Safety Day, inrecognition of the occurrence of the lastearthquake to strike the valley on January15, 1934.

The KVERMP achievements providedenough motivation for the municipalities ofVyas, Dharan and Banepa to develop theirworst case earthquake damage scenariowhich served as the basis for developingaction plans for ERM and subsequentimplementation.

Establishment of DisasterPreparedness Network-NepalThe need for establishing a network oforganizations those working in aspects ofdisaster risk management was realized in1996; and hence the organization wasinformally established in 1996 by a groupof 13 non-government organization. Later,in March 1998, a charter for the establi-shment of Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal) was prepared and inOctober 1998, 14 NGOs signed the charterformally establishing the organization.

Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal(DPNet-Nepal) was envisioned as a looseassociation of individual organizations withinthe development sector in Nepal, which areconcerned with disaster management.

Since, the formal establishment in 1998, itorganized several networking, awarenessand training events. During the course oftime, sometimes it was very active andsometimes not very much.

Until 2007, DPNet-Nepal worked as a loosenetwork of organizations. In 2007, it wasformally registered with the Social Welfare

Council of the Government of Nepal asper the Organization Registration Act. Therewere 30 members of the network when itwas formally registered with the SWC.

The network aims to assist individuals andorganizations to prepare for, and respondto and manage disaster should it strike.DPNet-Nepal works closely with Govern-ment of Nepal through its agencies, whichare concerned with disaster preparednessand management. It complements the effortof these agencies to inform and prepareorganizations and communities to dealeffectively with disasters. DPNet-Nepal isconcerned with natural disasters such asearthquake, floods, droughts and landslide.It will also cover disasters such as epidemic,flood and fire that occur often in towns andvillages.

DPNet-Nepal aims to assist and worksclosely with the Government institutionsbut as facilitator to Disaster Preparednessactivities in Nepal. Thus, DPNet-Nepalallows and encourages promoting effectivecoordination and communication as well asdeveloping knowledge management with itsall stakeholders in Nepal.

Thus DPNet-Nepal has been instrumentalin establishing strong linkages among thedisaster related organization throughnetworking approaches. It also has beencontributing towards building of capacitiesof member organization through mutualassistance and learning organization ofnetworking and sharing meetings,workshops, awareness-raising events,advocacy meetings and some key works thatDPNet-Nepal has been doing.

Disaster Management NetworkNepal (DiMaNN)The National Disaster ManagementNetwork Nepal (DiMaNN) is a networkthat consists of the organizations working


Ch

ap

ter

1

Government1 Armed Police Force Disaster Management

Cell2 Department of Hydrology and Meteorology3 Department of Mines and Geology4 Department of Soil Conservation and Water

shade Management5 Department of Water Induced Disaster

Prevention6 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives7 Ministry of Education/ Curriculum Dev. center8 Ministry of Environment9 Ministry of Science and Technology10 Ministry of Health & population11 Ministry of Home Affairs12 Ministry of Local development13 Ministry of Physical planning and works14 Ministry of Water resources15 Nepal Army Disaster Cell16 Nepal Police(Operation section)17 Department of Urban Development and

Building Construction18 Kathmandu Metropolitan City office19 National Planning commissionINGOs1 Action Aid Nepal2 ADRA Nepal3 Care International Nepal4 CARITAS Nepal5 Mercy Corps6 Oxfam GB Nepal7 Practical Action Nepal8 International Center for Integrated Mountain

Development (ICIMOD)9 Save the Children Alliance10 South Asia Partnership Nepal (SAP Nepal)11 Terre des Hommes12 The Lutheran World Federation Nepal (LWF

Nepal)13 UN/OCHA14 UNICEF15 United Mission To Nepal16 United Nation Development Programme17 World Health Organization, Emergency and

Humanitarian Action (WHO)18 World Vision International Nepal19 Handicap International20 Center for International Studies and

CooperationNGOs (within Kathmandu Valley)1 17 Ward DMC (Disaster management

Committee)2 Centre for Disaster Management Studies

3 Centre for Disaster Studies (IOE)4 Centre for Environment and Disaster

Management5 Community Development forum6 Department of Water Induced Disaster

Prevention7 DEPROSC- Nepal8 ECO-Nepal9 FOPAD10 Kirtipur Volunteer Society11 National Disaster Risk Reduction Center,

Baneshwor12 National Institution for Disaster Survivors13 Natural Disaster Management Forum (NDMF)14 Nepal Christian Relief Services15 Nepal Geological Society16 Nepal GIS Society17 Nepal Landslide Society18 Nepal Red Cross Society19 Nepal Scouts National Headquarters20 National Society for Earthquake Technology

- Nepal (NSET)21 School For Shelter and Environment22 Friends Service Council Nepal (FSCN)23 Trust Nepal24 Food For Health25 Focus Aid Nepal26 Jagaran Media Nepal27 RRNNGOs (outside Kathmandu Valley)1 Disaster Management Federation Nepal

Damak-10, jhapa2 CDM-Nepal, Butwal-113 FAYA Nepal, Dhangadhi, FAYA Marg, kailali4 Koshi victim Society, Rajbiraj, Saptari, Nepal5 Ratauli Yuba Club, Janakpur-7, Zeromile6 Rural Service Society, VDC Kabilasi-9 Gaira

Bazar, Sarlahi7 RWUA, Haripur, Sarlahi8 Women and Children Development Forum

(WCDF), Hetauda-49 Women, Children and Environmental Center,

Hetauda-210 Sahmati, Nawalparasi11 Social Service Center12 OCCED13 SOCOD Nepal, Lamjung14 Nepal National Social Welfare Association15 Nepal Environment and Education

Development Society (NEEDS Kanchanpur)16 Peacewin, Bajura17 Janaki Mahila Jagaran18 Bikalpa, Nawalparasi

Box 1.9: List of DPNet-Nepal Member Organizations

38 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

in disaster management sector stationed invarious geographical areas to mobilize local,natural and human resources working as anagent of social change.

DiMaNN has network members in twentytwo districts of Nepal. The Network worksin a grass root level and this has given achance of deeper understanding of thepeople's concern of disaster issues and itsinterconnections with cross cutting issueswith different developing activities likeeducation, health and sanitation, drinkingwater, etc. An effective organization ofprogram with good impact is possiblethrough this network for the communitypeople. Therefore, it is very much necessaryto sensitize & aware concerned stakeholders,people in disaster issues, & the capacitybuilding of NGOs, CBOs, advocacy,lobbying, for influencing policies at nationallevel. DiMaNN has been envisioned tocontribute on that cause.

National Network of CommunityDisaster Management Committee(N-NCDMC)National Network of Community DisasterManagement Committee (N-NCDMC) is acommunity led loose network organized toestablish the right of disaster affected peopleand to build the risk resilient communitiesthrough awareness, capacity building andpolicy advocacy ensuring participation inboth government and private agency'splanning and implementation. People fromhighly vulnerable and/or affectedcommunities to different natural hazardshave organized themselves in Committeesthat work together to reduce the risk in theircommunities.

Nepal Geological Society (NGS)Nepal Geological Society (NGS) wasformally established in 1980 with theobjectives to develop and promote the

research and application of geologicalsciences to the national development, fosterhigh professional standard among itsmembers, and promote and protect theprofessional interests of earth scientists ofthe country and also to be active inprotection and conservation of environmentand in reduction of natural disaster.Presently, the Society has over 440 membersencompassing almost all the geoscientistsof Nepal as well as many geoscientists ofother countries who are actively engaged orinterested in the geological research ofHimalaya-Tibet region. In this regard theNepal Geological Society is more than justa national society. It has over one third ofits members from this region and overseas.

The society is also gradually fulfilling a roleof a regional geoscientific organization. Itis hoped that the Society may be able tohelp develop a better networking of thescientists of this region and overseas andfoster an atmosphere for a more effectiveregional and international scientificcooperation in the field of researches in theHimalayan earth sciences.

Nepal Landslide Society (NELS)Nepal Landslide Society (NELS) is a nationalnon-governmental and non-profitprofessional scientific organization. NepalLandslide Society (NELS) aims atcontributing to the reduction of loss of lifeand property due to landslides, glacial lakeoutburst flood (GLOFs), erosion, floodsand so on through study and research onrelated science and technology to mitigateand prevent such disasters. NELS intendsto undertake measures to raise awarenessthrough related institutions, enhanceprofessional and scientific qualities of expertsand organizations working in this field, andto help landslide-affected communities withrescue and relief work. Nepal LandslideSociety provides access to elements that are

| 39


Ch

ap

ter

1

essential to the professional growth ofscientists at all levels of expertise and fromall sectors: academic, government, business,and industry. It has a common purpose tostudy the mysteries of our planet and sharescientific findings related with naturaldisaster. Its main activities include fosteringthe human quest for understandinglandslides and related phenomena throughresearch and study, catalyzing new scientificways of thinking about natural disasters,and also applying knowledge and insight tohuman needs and aspirations andstewardship of the countermeasures againstsuch disasters.

The Society of Hydrologists andMeteorologists - Nepal (SOHAM-Nepal)The Society of Hydrologist andMeteorologist-Nepal (SOHAM-Nepal) issolely an autonomous professionalorganizat ion of Hydrologist andMeteorologist in Nepal. SOHAM-Nepalcame into existence on 23rd March 2001on the auspicious occasion of the WorldMeteorological Day under the name of“Nepal Association of Hydrologist andMeteorologist” (NAHAM). An ad-hoccommittee under the chairmanship of ProfSuresh Raj Chalise was formed. On 13thDecember, 2001, NAHAM was renamed asSOHAM-Nepal by a meeting includingseveral distinguished Hydrologists andMeteorologists from various organizationsof the country.

Main objectives of SOHAM are to Promotestudies and researches in the field ofhydrology and meteorology in Nepal; helpacademic and professional upliftment ofNepalese hydrologists and meteorologistsand protect their rights; establish contactswith concerned national and internationalorganizations towards development ofmutual benefit; develop involvement ofnational professionals related to hydrology

and meteorology towards overal ldevelopment of the country; promotecontacts, solidarity and professional ethicsamong hydrologists and meteorologists; andconduct research independently or incollaboration with national and internationalinstitutions, publish materials related to this,as well as conduct consultancy services.

SOHAM-Nepal has been serving the nationsince its establishment through its member’sexpertise, ideas and efforts in various relevantissues like climate change, global warming,snow/glacier, water resources etc. At present,more than 145 professionals have beenassociated with SOHAM-Nepal. The generalassembly is the highest body of the societyfor preparing its rules and regulation. Apartfrom this, an executive committee is alsoformed to run the society through generalelection. Initially, the period of executivecommittee was for two years but it waschanged to three years since fourth executivecommittee. The society publishes Journalof Hydrology and Meteorology SOHAM(For detail: www.soham.org.np).

Nepal GIS SocietyNepal GIS Society (NEGISS) is a non-profitforum of GIS professionals and users inNepal registered under the Government ofNepal on July 22, 1995. The inception ofthe Society is attributed to the felt need ofGIS professionals for a common forum foradvancing the use and application of GIStechnologies in Nepal and for sharingprofessional experiences in addition todedicating to larger mandate of engagingon advocacy for optimized management ofspatial data resources among others.

Nepal GIS Society is formed with a clearobjective of furthering the use andapplication of GIS and spatial data analysistechnologies in the country as an aid toensuring sustainable human developmentand mobilization of our resource bases.

40 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

GIS technologies offers great functionalitiesfor processing spatial information andderieving knowledge that is more holistic.The fact remains however that Nepal is stillat formative stage in terms of using GIStechnologies to solve developmentalchallenges and linking the resourcefulnessobtainable through judicious application ofGIS to strategies implemented to solve socio-economic problems faced by the country.A mechanism facilitation networking amongGIS user and professional seemed to holda lot of potential to create synergies in GISarena in the country.

In addition to this, Nepal GIS Society alsoassume advocacy roles putting forth theneed to avoid duplication of effort,developing standards and ensuringcommitment for data sharing and tailoringGIS applications to meet local leveldevelopment challenges.

Center for Disaster StudiesThe Centre for Disaster Studies wasestablished in 2003 AD in the Institute ofEngineering (IoE). The centre has anobjective of working for management ofdisaster in the country. It is trying to do thisby offering short term courses, carrying outresearch and consultancy works in thebeginning. This center is now supportingand assisting Master’s degree course inDisaster Risk Management in the IoE.

Association of International NGOsThe Association of International NGOs(AIN), formed by INGOs working in Nepalin September 1996, is an important actor inthe development sector of Nepal as it hasbeen implementing various people-centereddevelopment programmes throughout thehills, mountains and Tarai areas. Recognizingthe growing need to work in a country proneto Natural Disaster and several emergencysituation, AIN is committed to expand its

resources on behalf of all disadvantagedpeople in Nepal, especially those vulnerableto Natural Disaster and continues to engagewith the Government, donors, varioussectors of the civil society, NGOs and poorand excluded people on these issues.

AIN Task Group on Disaster Management(AIN-TGDM) is a working group focusingon Emergency and Disaster Management.Formed in 2002, as an integral part of AINKnowledge Management matrix AIN-TGDM has been continuously updating andsharing the issues and updates within itsmember organizations and has been takingresponsibility to develop understanding onconceptual and operational aspects ofemergency and disaster issues in Nepal.

DIPECHO Projects in NepalIn recognition of Nepal’s need to tackle theproblem of disaster risks and mitigate theirimpacts on people's lives and livelihoods,the European Commission began to providefinancial assistance to Nepal when it releasedits First DRR Action Plan in 2003. On 15June 2009, DIPECHO launched its FifthAction Plan, which emphasizes the need forinitiating a wide array of community-based disaster preparedness and DRRinterventions, including developing a disastermanagement and risk reduction legalframework, implementing disaster education,constructing small-scale mitigativeinfrastructures, coordinating among agencies,conducting research, developing earlywarning systems, and building capacity. Theprojects under DIPECHO’s Fifth ActionPlan involve eight partners, cover 18 districts,and ran to December 2010.

Key Interventions were Awareness Raising;Capacity building & Preparedness (Trainings– Search & Rescue, Basic First Aid, PVA,CBDM, etc, Assistive Devices provision/preposition, Community based EarlyWarning Systems, Disaster preparedness

| 41


Ch

ap

ter

1

qm=;+

!@#$%^&*(!)

c+u|]hL zAb

HazardDisasterRiskVulnerabilityExposureCapacityResilienceResistantRecoveryResponse

k|fljlws zAb÷lgSof}{nul/Psf g]kfnL zAb

k|sf]kljkb\hf]lvd;+s6f;Ggtf;Dd'vtfIfdtfpTyfgzLntfk|lt/f]wLk'gnf{ek|ltsfo{

Box 1.10: Disaster related Keywords interpreted, developed andadapted by Dhulikhel Workshop 2008

qm=;+

!!!@!#!$!%!^!&!*!(@)

c+u|]hL zAb

ReliefFore Shocks/Pre-shocksAfter shocksRetrofittingReinforcingMitigationReductionEarthquake "Go Bag"Shaking TableDuck, Cover and Hold

k|fljlws zAb lgSof}{nul/Psf g]kfnL zAb

/fxtk"j{sDkk/sDkk|anLs/0f;anLs/0fcNkLs/0fGo"gLs/0fe'O{+rfnf] æem6k6 emf]nfÆsDkg d~r3'F8f 6]sL u'F8'NsL, cf]t nfuL ;dft

plan/Community & VDC action plans,Simulation/mock drills, LSAR Equipments,First Aid kits, Exchange visits); Institutionallinkages and advocacy; Small Scale Mitiga-tion; and Coordination, joint collaboration,sharing lessons. The main focus was onpromoting replicable community centricinitiatives to enhance risk resilience thatinclude establishing community based earlywarning systems, awareness generation,capacity building, skill development,leadership, institutional strengthening, peopleled advocacy, life skill training, small scalemitigation and localized material support tohelp people help themselves.

DIPECHO has built awareness, trainedvolunteer base as well as improved structuralsafety through retrofitting. These schoolsare now acting as models for efficient safetymeasures. Numerous schools have beencovered across various districts. Thousandsof students are oriented on earthquake safety.

Mock drills were conducted, a practice stillbeing continued in many of the schools.

Risk profiling exercises were conductedthrough participatory methods like HazardVulnerability Capacity Assessment (HVCA),Participatory Vulnerability Capacity

Assessment (PVCA), ParticipatoryVulnerability Assessment (PVA) etc. in allproject locations. Contingency plans andDRR plans developed in many districts.Such positive initiatives validate increasingdemands for institutionalization of DRRwithin development plans. The NationalStrategy for Disaster Risk Management wassupported under DIPECHO IV. The Schoolcurriculum to include DRR into nationalcurricula was initiated under DIPECHOIII. DIPECHO also provided strategicsupport to DPNet-Nepal under DIPECHOIII and IV and also to initiatives that havenational relevance and impact.

Developing DRR Terminologies inNepaliThe process of defining and redefiningaccurate and pervasive meaning of disasterre lated Nepal i words & phrasesetymologically as well as based on contextual& transformational dynamics and alsoadopting newer concepts and terminologiesfrom Global arena helps enrich disastervocabulary and consequently enhances thelevel of awareness and understanding aswell. National Society for EarthquakeTechnology – Nepal (NSET) has beenengaged in developing and adapting Disaster

42 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

related concepts and terminologies in Nepalilanguage with the view to standardize &enrich Nepali vocabulary and also enhancecommon understanding on those amongstNepali communities.

Initially, during 2002-2004, NSET carriedout extensive work on gathering andcompiling Disaster Vocabulary comprisingnumerous Nepali words in use in the areasof Hazards, Disasters and Risk Reductionand also acquiring certain words fromdifferent languages with an idea to assimilatethose with Nepali linguistics. The conceptualconstruct was initiated and raised with theNSET in-house efforts and continued withthe WSSI fellowship. Well known consultantsfrom Nepali linguistic fields Mr. MadanMani Dixit and Dr. Devi Prasad Subediworked in this endeavor and come up withalmost finalised form. The draft has beenreviewed several times by senior expertsand professionals from different layers ofcore as well as peripheral linkages. It hasbeen developed only in soft copy and finalprints could be made possible with coupleof consultative meetings/ workshops andpeer review processes.

As there was felt an acute need of transfor-ming contemporary global concepts &terminologies in DRR to integrate and fitinto Nepali wisdom and practices, NSETin association with Ministry of Home Affairsand with the support from ActionAid Nepalorganized a two-day residential workshopof well known Linguists, Litterateurs, Media-persons and government & non-governmentprofessionals in DRR fields in Dhulikhel,Kavre during January 18-20, 2008. Theworkshop was organized as an additionalevent within Earthquake Safety Daycelebration with the view to "DevelopingConsensus on Selection/Etymology ofNepali Words Pertaining to Disaster RiskManagement". It was the first multi-stakeholders’ activity of this kind held inNepal that worked out intensively to clarify

the concepts and build consensus on theEtymology of Nepali words pertaining toDisaster Risk Reduction. The uniformity &standardization in use of disasterterminologies in Nepali language has beenenhanced referring the outcomes of theworkshop. National Strategy for DisasterRisk Management in Nepal which has beenendorsed by Government of Nepal in 2009stresses in use of common DRRterminologies including those evolved oradapted by Dhulikhel Workshop.

Sensitizing Constituent AssemblyMembers on DRRNepal is one of the acknowledged ‘globalhotspots’ for disasters. The increasingfrequency and intensity of disasters havebeen adversely affecting this Himalayancountry. Whereas there has been increasingefforts to address disasters throughappropriate mechanisms, including adoptionof National Strategy for Disaster RiskManagement (Oct, 2009), there is also agrowing concern that there is a need tofurther strengthen the DRR framework inNepal, so as to insure the developmentinvestments and arrest erosion of social,economic and environmental assets due toa variety of disasters that pose danger to thelives and livelihood of the people.

| 43

Figure 1.6: Constituent Assembly Membersat the sensitization workshop


Ch

ap

ter

1

One of the key measures identified by DRRstakeholders in the country is to inform thepolicy makers of the country. Thus, througha path breaking initiative, key DRRstakeholders including Ministry of HomeAffairs, partners of the DIPECHO programunder European Commission HumanitarianAid depar tment , United Nat ionsDevelopment Program in Nepal, OxfamGB, Association of International NGOs,DPNet-Nepal, Nepal Red Cross and NSETdecided to join hands together to design,develop and distribute ‘Disaster RiskReduction Tool Kit’ to inform and sensitizethe constituent assembly members ondisasters, risks and need for increasing

44 |

attention and framework to address disasterrisks. Through a consultative process, theDisaster Risk Reduction Tool Kit wasdeveloped which is a professionally designedinformation pack on disaster risk reduction,specially designed to inform constituentassembly members on DRR, sensitize thepolicy makers on disaster issues and solicittheir informed involvement and leadershipto strengthen DRR framework in Nepal.The Tool Kit comprises of overview ofdisasters in Nepal, NSDRM, existinglegislation on disaster management, HFA,need for strengthening DRR frameworkthrough an inclusive approach addressingspecial needs of differentially vulnerable

Box 1.11: Addressing Disaster in Periodic PlansDisaster Management Programs was first includedin the 10th national plan (2002-2007) of thegovernment of Nepal. Chapter 17 emphasized onthe irrigation and water induced disaster control,whereas chapter 22 deals on population,environment and natural and human induceddisaster management. Both chapters reiteratethe priority on policy formulation, strengtheninginstitutional mechanism, risk assessment,information collection and disseminationregarding the disaster management. Bothchapters also emphasized on the low costsdisaster resilience construction practices.

Similarly, the Three Year Interim Plan (2007/08-2009/10) devoted separate chapter (chapter 26)on natural disaster management. The interim planemphasizes on policy formulation, strengtheninginstitutional mechanism, EWS, coordinatedapproach for DRR and linking disastermanagement with climate change. It is hopedthat this attempt would be a landmark in thehistory of Disaster Management.

The plan has set up its vision to minimize socialand economic loss and damage caused bydisasters. The main objective of plan is to promotethe security of life and property from the impactof natural disasters through sustainable,environment-friendly and result orienteddevelopment by making disaster management

practices efficient, competent, strengthened andeffective.

Develop and apply environment-friendly systemsin development and construction works,appropriate information flow and pre- disasterpreparedness for the mitigation of risks of naturaldisaster, strengthen collaborative works betweenthe government, non government and private

sector for rapid response and recovery are themajor strategies of the plan. The plan has listedthe programs of formulation of national strategy,awareness raising, preparedness for effectiveresponse and recovery, study and research, riskand hazard zone mapping, stockpiling of reliefand rescue materials, and enhancement ofinvolvement of local bodies.

Current 12th three year development plan (2010/11-2012/13) has also devoted separate chapter fordisaster management issues. This plan addresseddisaster management issues morecomprehensively.12th three year developmentplan set its disaster management goal to achievegoal of Hyogo Framework for Action by 2015.Long term goal of the plan is to develop disasterresilient Nepal. Moreover, mainstreaming disasterrisk reduction, institutional and legal reform andpreparedness for better response are thestrategies of this plan.

Ch

ap

ter 1

| 45

people, disaster map of Nepal, disaster factsheet and proposed flood early warningstrategy as a key DRR measure for Nepal.

DRR Partners in Nepal conducted series ofWorkshops to sensitize ConstituentAssembly (CA) Members on DRR in 2010.The program was organized jointly byHumanitarian Aid Department of EuropeanCommission, Australian Government-AusAID, ActionAid and Co-Action Nepalin association with Oxfam, DPNet-Nepaland Eco-Nepal. Such an initiative has beenbelieved to produce and propagatesubstantial dynamism in accelerating nationallevel policy formulation processes anddeveloping effective plans and programs atvarious levels. Participating CA Memberswere found highly concerned over issues ofdisaster risks and their management.

Mainstreaming DRR in Nepal'sEducation SystemDisasters can be reduced substantially ifpeople are well informed about measuresthey can take to reduce vulnerability - andif they are motivated to act. ActionAid Nepalpaid efforts to mainstream DRR educationin school curriculum as part of project whichran from October 2006 to February 2010.The Disaster Risk Reduction through School(DRRS) project aimed to provide relevantinformation on disaster risks and means ofprotection in formal, non-formal andinformal education and training activities.There was no holistic book that could beused to teach students about DRR in theclassroom. There were very limited resourcesavailable. After this intervention, CurriculumDevelopment Center of Nepal Governmentrevised three compulsory subjects - socialstudies, science and health, population andenvironment - for grade nine and ten,rewriting the textbooks to integrate DRReducation. Also process of developingteacher's guide and training teachers havebeen initiated. Positive results have seen

students learning about causes and effectsof disasters, disseminating the knowledgeamong their community, and exploring localsolutions to disasters. (Jnavaly S., 2010)

Study on Strengthening LegalPreparedness for InternationalDisaster ResponseIt is a common practice nowadays thatcountries suffering from large-scale disastersreceive international support for disasterresponse. Nepal has also been gettingsupports from neighbouring contries andother international organizations duringmajor disaster events. However, receivingand managing the international assistancesare complex and challenging.

There are numbers of relevant provisionscontained in different national laws, however,they are not specifically targeted towardsreceiving international assistance in care ofa large disaster. Instead, ad-hoc decision aremade during the need to provide legal groundfor receiving such international assistance.Therefore, a need was felt to dense requiredlegal basis for receiving and managinginternational assistance during large disasters.In this view, Nepal Red Cross Society(NRCS) conducted a study on strengtheninglegal preparedness within the scope ofInternational Disaster Response Law (IDRL)in Nepal. The study reviewed existing legalprovisions and made recommendations onimproving/ strengthening it. In 2007, theInternational Federation of Red Cross andRed Crescent Societies (IFRC) developedthe IDRL guidelines (Guidelines for theDomestic Facilation and Regulation ofInternational Disaster Relief and InitialRecovery Assistances). The IDRL guidelinesare a set of recommentations to governm-ents on how to prepare their disasterresponse laws and plans for the commonregulating problems in international disasterrelief operations. The study was primarilybased on the IDRL guidelines.


Ch

ap

ter

1

Box 1.12: Findings and Recommendations of IDRL StudyKey Findings• There are currently strong legal mechanisms

for controlling corruption, fraud and unlawfuldiversion of international relief and initialrecovery assistance.

• Information sharing mechanisms for earlywarning within the country and betweenneighboring countries are yet to be properlyestablished.

• Improving the access to the sea and ensuringcooperation with transit states is essential forNepal, a country which is landlocked anddisaster prone.

• The roles of domestic actors need furtherclarification, and attention needs to be paidto increase their capacity and resources inorder to meet their mandates.

• The existing legal provisions for obtainingtemporary legal status, obtaining workingvisas, recognizing professional qualifications,importing telecommunication equipment andmedicines are too time-consuming for thedisaster context.

• While the Government of Nepal is seen asbeing liberal in the implementation of currentlaws in the disaster context, no mechanismhas been established so far to ensure thespeedy registration of assisting humanitarianorganizations and the coordinated provisionof legal facilities.

Core Recommendations• Define conditions and procedures for

appealing for and accepting internationalassistance;

• Include minimum standards for the deliveryof relief and recovery assistance based oninternational codes of conduct and standards;

• Contain provisions on early warning as animportant component of disaster riskreduction. Reference may also be made tobilateral sharing of information withneighboring countries and regionalarrangements through the SAARC;

• Describe conditions and procedures forterminating international assistance.

• Clearly describe the roles and responsibilitiesof domestic actors in disaster response,ensuring that such duties are commensuratewith their authority and resources;

• Establish mechanisms for cooperationbetween assisting actors and governmentauthorities (to be developed in consultationwith humanitarian actors);

• Establish a fast track system for theregistration of humanitarian organizationsthat addresses visa arrangements,recognition of professional qualifications,provision of temporary legal status and theimportation of relief and early recovery goods(the provision of such facilities should beconditional upon organizations meetingcertain eligibility requirements based onparagraph 4 of the IDRL Guidelines and,where possible, the registration of theseorganizations should be made in advance ofa disaster);

• Provide for permission to be granted quicklyfor transportation, exemption of taxes,authorization of the use oftelecommunication equipment and radiofrequencies, and the lifting of restrictions onthe importation of relief and recovery relatedgoods and equipment;

• Establish minimum standards for relief goodsand their packaging, as well as methods forthe disposal of unused or unwanted goods.

SummaryThe past three decades have witnessedtremendous amount of policy levelinterventions, inclusion of DRR in nationallevel plans, programs and several cases andexamples of disaster risk reduction andpreparednes efforts. The general awarenessof people of the communities, andprofessionals at policy and decision makinglevel has significantly increased. Capacities

to plan and implement mitigation andpreparedness actions have been improved.In summary, the environment has becomemore conducive for taking the concepts ofdisaster risk reduction to a new height withmore focused and widened scope of works.The current need is to make the legalenvironment better by promulgating thenew act as envisioned in the NSDRM whichwill pave a new national highway formainstreaming DRM in Nepal.

46 |

Ch

ap

ter 1

1970s and Realization of need for systematic disaster management during the disasterevents such as Landslides and several other disasters of 1970s, Bajhang Earthquake,1980

1982 Promulgation of Natural Calamity (Relief) Act 1982 (NCRA)

1984 UNDP study about threats of disaster and the need for foreign assistanceconducted

1987 Establishment of Special Disaster Unit (SDU) in Ministry of Home Affairs

1988 Udayapur Earthquake of magnitude 6.5

1989-1992 Institutional Support to Disaster Preparedness and Relief begun

NCRA 1982 amended

1990-1993 Policy and Technical Support to Urban Sector (PTSUS- UNDP/UNCHS ProjectNEP/88/054) initiated

1990 Formation of IDNDR National Committee

Formation of NGS-IDNDR Council

Strategy for Training on Disaster Management prepared

1991 Beginning of IDNDR Day Celebration in Nepal

Comprehensive Disaster Management Plan Prepared

Establishment of Disaster Prevention Technical Center (DPTC) in Nepal

1992 Second amendment of NCRA (1982) ratified

Nepal signed the UNFCCC treaty during the Earth Summit at Rio

1993 Training of government officers by the government in collaboration withUNDP/DHA held

First World Seismic Safety Initiative (WSSI) Workshop held in Bangkok

Flood of South Central Nepal

Three sectoral working groups (Health, Logistics, and Food & Agriculture)established for the response of 1993 flood

1993/94 Training on disaster management conducted by USAID and ADPC, Bangkokorganized at the request of MoHA

1994 Formulation of Nepal National Building Code

Formulation on National Action Plan on Disaster Management

Establishment of NSET l for supporting government in reducing earthquake riskin Nepal.

1996 National Action Plan on Disaster Management endorsed by government

Disaster Management section was setup at Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)

Establishment of Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal) forsupporting coordination between government and non-government setors

Disaster Management Capacity Building Program of UNDP initiated

Timeline: Disaster Risk Management in Nepal

Government Initiative Initiative by Civil Society Global Initiative Disaster Event

| 47

early 1980s


Ch

ap

ter

1

1997 Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project (KVERMP) launched asnational project under the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program of AsianDisaster Preparedness Center

1998 Government of Nepal declared Magh 2 (15 or 16 January) as National EarthquakeSafety Day (ESD)

Building Act adopted by the Parliament

Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan was finalized

Disaster Management Section in Kathmandu Metropolitan Office was set up

1999 First Earthquake Safety Day (ESD) celebrated

Prime Minister released the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Scenario and RiskManagement Action Plan

Local Self Governance Act promulgated

2000 Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP) established

Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan ImplementationProject started

2001 First DIPECHO project launched in Nepal

Department of Narcotics Control and Disaster Management established

Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response Plan for the Health Sectordrafted

2002 Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley (SEDM), carriedout in cooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

First ever mass casualty drill was organized involving the emergency rescueresponders and hospitals

Seismic vulnerability assessment of 14 hospitals undertaken with Ministry ofHealth and WHO

Asian Seismological Commission 2002 held in Kathmandu

2003 Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) of development projects made mandatory inthe Tenth National Plan

GON decides mandatory implementation of Building Code

Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City started mandatory implementation of NepalNational Building Code (first municipality to initiate the process)

Pre-Positioned Emergency Rescue Stores (PPERS) established in eight communitiesin Kathmandu Valley and the local volunteers were trained

DesInventar system introduced in Nepal with assistance of UNDP/BCPR, inventoryof natural disasters of the country for the last 33 years (1971-2003) prepared andanalyzed

RADIUS established in Kathmandu Metropolitan City as a planning tool incooperation with UNESCO


48 |

Ch

ap

ter 1


“One of the lessons learnt from the tsunami is that thousands of lives and billions of dollarscould have been saved had adequate disaster reduction strategies been in place….

I urge all stakeholders to implement the Hyogo Framework for Action, andto do it now now”

Bill Clinton, Special Envoy for Tsunami recovery, 2005

2004 NSET received Tech Museum Award in Microsoft Education category for theinnovative Shake Table Technology

Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Preparedness Initiative (KVEPI) started jointly byAmerican Red Cross, Nepal Red Cross Society and NSET as a preparedness andcapacity building program in 10 locations of Kathmandu Valley under OFDA support

2005 Nepal Participated in the World Conference on DR (WCDR-Hyogo Conference)held in Kobe, Japan

Second Core Member Meeting (CMM II) on “International Framework forDevelopment of Disaster Reduction Technology List on Implementation Strategies- Disaster Reduction Hyperbase" for Asia-Pacific Region was organized in Nepal

First Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, organized byGovernment of China in Beijing, China

2006 Community Based Disaster Management Program (CBDMP) initiated

Curriculum Development Center (CDC) started integrating disaster issues in schoolcurricula

2007 Drafts of acts, policies and strategies on disaster management in Nepal prepared

MoHA promulgated Relief Standard for disaster affected people

Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction established in Geneva, Switzerland

Disaster Risk Reduction at the National Level in Nepal (DRRNLN-II) implementedby UNDP

2008 National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (NPDRR) established

Cluster Approach first endorsed and adopted by IASC in Nepal

Koshi Flood Disaster

2009 National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management endorsed by GON

Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium Launched

Jajarkot Diarrhea Outbreak

2010 National Emergency Operation Center (NEOC) established at the national level

The Making Cities Resilient: 'My City is getting ready!' campaign, launched in May2010 by UNISDR – Nepal is one of the signatory country

| 49


Celebrating ISDR day 2010, KathmanduPhoto Courtesy: DPNet-Nepal

50 |

CHAPTER 2: DISASTER DATAANALYSIS FOR 2010

| 51

Landslide on the only road to several districts of Far Western NepalPhoto Courtesy: nyayahealth.wordpress.coms

Nepal Disaster Report 201152 |

Ch

ap

ter 2

Disasters in Year 2010In general, according to DesInventar data,the most common type of disaster in thecountry is epidemic, followed by landslidesand flooding (Table 2.1). The greatest lossof life is due to epidemics in last four decades(1971-2010). During this period, more than30,000 people lost their live by all hazards.In terms of loss in housing, about 400thousand houses were either destroyed ordamaged. The trend of disaster types alsosuggests the increasing ratio of hazard eventsas well as their impacts. The recent decadeshave higher ratio of disaster impact in termsof loss of lives and building damage.

In the similar way for the year of 2010,DesInventar Database of Nepal hasrecorded a total of 1,551 data cards i.enumber of disaster events occurred withinthe country. During this period, 834 deaths,473 injuries, 143,000 affected (Table 2.2)population were recorded. This figure shows

average 2.3 deaths per day for 2010, whereaseconomic loss due to these events caused10,735.7 million Nepalese Rupees (NRs).Notable is the fact that about 47 percent ofdeaths were caused by human induced (othercategory) events (i.e. accident, boat capsize,biological, others etc.) whereas 19 per centby weather related events, 16 percent byepidemiological events, 8 per cent bylandslides, and 3 percent by floods (Figure2.1). The Figure 2.1 also shows that fire ismost frequently occurring disaster eventwhich account for 25 per cent of data cardsdisaster occurence, followed by floods (12percent) and epidemics (8 percent).

The loss due to several hazard types variesdifferently. Hydro-meteorological andepidemics caused the highest deaths in thecountry for the year of 2010. In terms ofaffected population, flood is the highlyextensive event affecting about 100 thousandpeople.

Disaster Data Analysis for 2010

S.N.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Hazard Type

Epidemics

Landslide

Flood

Fire

Thunderstorm

Accident

Earthquake

Cold wave

Structural Collapse

Boat Capsize

Other events

Total

Number ofrecords/events

3413

2705

3377

4936

1034

1000

95

320

389

135

2651

20055

Number ofdeaths

16521

4327

3899

1293

986

969

873

442

404

269

999

30982

Number ofinjury

43076

1446

461

1097

1810

359

6840

83

596

124

1335

57227

Affectedpopulation

512967

555607

3665104

252074

6668

2137

4539

2393

2016

410

928331

5932246

DestroyedHouses

-

18249

93807

70118

320

5

33708

-

1170

-

4985

222362

DamagedHouses

-

13690

86504

1832

368

415

55312

-

623

-

9738

168482

Table 2.1: The most lethal hazard types and their impact in Nepal 1971-2010.

Source: DesInventar, 2011

Chapter 2

| 53


Ch

ap

ter

2

Disaster Occurences in 2010Table 2.1 shows that fire, landslide, floodand epidemics are the most frequentlyoccurring hazard types in Nepal for the lastfour decades. For year 2010, fire is the mostextensively occurring hazard followed byhydro-meteorological events. Still floods andlandslides are highly occurring hazards. Thesenumber of records of hazards represent the

extensiveness (covering larger areas) of thehazard type throughout the country. Thisextensiveness of the hazard types can alsobe associated with the impact on agriculture,health, livelihoods etc.

During the past decades, in general thetrend of disaster events has a significantincrease, especially in recent decades, thenumber of disaster events has significantly

Hazard Types

Flood

Landslide

Fire/ forest fires

Epidemics

Other Hydro-meteorological

Other

Total

No. of records/events

191

148

378

128

267

439

1,551

Impact on Human Lives Loss of Building

Deaths

27

67

61

130

161

391

837

Injuries

1

52

65

3

200

152

473

Missing

23

21

-

-

5

97

146

Affected

99,526

17,832

10,773

2,202

10,675

2,017

143,025

Destroyed

1,611

396

2,131

-

89

32

4,259

Damaged

6,093

255

90

-

1,657

358

8,453

Table 2.2: Loss of human lives and property due to disasters in 2010, Nepal.


54 |

Box 2.1: Major Disasters in theYear 2010Flood/Landslides

As in the previous year flood and landslidestriggered by heavy rainfall wrought havoc invarious parts of the country as well displacedhundreds of families.

Incessant monsoon rains have resulted in flashfloods, inundation and landslides in 43 districtsacross the country. All five regions of Nepalwere affected by the floods and landslides,according to the Ministry of Home Affairs(MoHA). In the Eastern Region,Sankhuwasabha, Udayapur, Taplegunj, Ilam,Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Saptari districts wereaffected, whereas in the Central Terai Sindhuli,Dolakha, Dhading, Dhanusa, Sarlahi, Chitwan,Makawanpur, Rautahat, Parsa were mostaffected. Likewise, in Western Region, Syangja,Kaski, Tanahu, Baglung, Myagdi, Parbat, Gulmi,Nawalparasi were affected and in Mid-Westregion, Rukum, Dang, Pyuthan, Bardiya, Banke,Jajarkot, Dailekh, Kalikot, Dolpa and in the Far-

West Region, Bajura, Achham, Kailali,Kanchanpur, Dadeldhura were most affectedby floods and landslides.

(Nepal Floods and Landslides Situation Report, Issue No. 02,06 September 2010)

Floods

More than 70 families had been displaced dueto floods in several parts of the Jhapa districtin June 2010. Areas including Duwagadhi,Mechinagar, Dhaijan, Jyamirgadi, Goldhap andChandragadi in the eastern part of the districthave been the hardest hit. Floods had alsoaffected Baigundhura and Topgachhi in thewest. Thirty eight families have been displacedand another 243 affected ward number 1,2,34and 5 of Duwagadi VDC alone due to floods inHadiya and Fulbasa rivers. The displacedfamilies were sheltered at Shanti PrimarySchool and Puhantu Janajyoti SecondarySchool. They had been provided with food andclothes by neighbours. Most of the displacedfamilies are either Santhal or Rajbanshi.Likewise, 33 families had been displaced fromChandragadi-3 and 4 after the swollen Hadiyariver enterned human settlements. The

Ch

ap

ter 2

of natural disasters. During the year 2010,disaster events caused 837 deaths, 473 injuriesand 143 thousand population affectedthroughout the country. These were causeddue to floods, landslides, fires, epidemicsand other weather related events.

Loss according to physiographicregionTable 2.3 shows the effects of disaster onpeople according to physiographic anddevelopment regions. The highest proportionof disaster occurrence and death is inEastern Development Region; followed byCentral Development Region.

Flood events are frequent and have largesteffect in the populated areas of hills andTarai. Landslides are also very frequent andcommon in hill areas.

Epidemiological events are common in allregions. Lack of good health facilities inremote areas is one of the most prominentcauses of epidemiological events and highimpacts to the people.

increased and the impact on people andproperty as well. The reason behind this canbe associated with the improved mechanismof reporting of disasters and the increasedawareness in disaster reporting of media.

Loss of Life Due to DisastersDeaths, injuries and affected population arethe commonly accepted and highlyimportant indicators of the direct impact

| 55

Figure 2.1: Trend of hazard occurrence inpast decades in Nepal, 1971-2010.Source: DesInventar, 2011

houses in Mahabharta had been inundated byKamal River.

(Data source: Various news papers)

In Udayapur, a total of 420 families had beenaffected by flooding from Triyuga river andBadrwa khola. 250 families from Tapeswari; 100families from Triyuga municipality and 70 familiesfrom Tribeni have been affected by the floods.One person has been found dead and one is still

missing and 13 families of Triyugamunicipality were displaced.

According to NRCS-Rautahat, a totalof 560 families were affected in thedistrict (Harsaha - 80 families;Bahardurpur - 30 families andBanjaraha- about 450 families) by theswollen Bagmati and Lal Bakaiyarivers. In Sarlahi, about 120householdsof Nayabasti located inKarmaiya (Bagmati river barrageside) were affected by water loggingand two houses have beencompletely damaged.Inundated area of Duwagadhi by Ninda KholaPhoto Courtesy: Raju, Nagarik Daily Newspaper

displaced had been kept at PashupatiSecondary School. Similarly, 55 huts insideGoldhap Regugee Camp had been inundatedby water from Deunia river. Armed police forceand Nepal Police had been mobilsed for rescuein the camp. A few families in Mechinagar andJyamirgadi had also been displaced by theswollen Ninda river while most of the schoolsin Mechinagar remained closed. Several bighasof land in Topgachhi-7, 8 and 9 and a few


Ch

ap

ter

2

Table 2.3: Disaster effects on Human Population, 2010

Development / PhysiographicRegion

No. of records /events

Human Population

Deaths Injuries Missing Affected

13773248

17947136

2191370

1422594

3947821,551

5214105

944485

96556

842582

293135837

572119

813551

93018

3886

111619473

1967

191010

3114

1083

549146

17,9427,65226,489

8,57259511,569

4,7321,45235,747

2,6855986,210

1,0052,25915,518143,025

Eastern Development RegionHillMountainTaraiCentral Development RegionHillMountainTaraiWestern Development RegionHillMountainTaraiMid-western Development RegionHillMountainTaraiFar-western Development RegionHillMountainTaraiTotal


56 |

Hundreds of houses of Mandi area (4 VDCs) inwestern Chitwan district were inundated by thefloods. The area has been totally cut off fromthe district headquarters and other places.Rescue workers had not been able to reach thearea by land. According to local sources, on 24August, at least two people were washed awayby the river and another two were missing.More than 200 families were completelydisplaced and required the camp facilities.

(Nepal Floods and Landslides Situation Report,Issue No. 01, 25 August 2010)

In Morang, over 500 families were displaceddue to floods in various rivers. At least 50families in Itahara VDC were driven out due tothe flooded Bakraha River. Some 300 familieshad been affected by the flood. A 15 year oldgirl from Itahara-5 died after being swept away.The Bakraha river also displaced 60 families atKhame Jhoa in Madhumalla. Urlabari-7 andBelbari-3 were also hit by floods. A large areaof farmland at Kamalakhoch region of Sindhulidistrict has been flooded by the Kamala andTawa rivers. The swelling Narayani river inNawalparasi district posed a risk to 12 VDCs ofthe Gandak region.

Heavy rain in Chure range provoked flood inRatu river in Mahottari that inundated fewhouses and intruded nearly 50 meters road inNepal-India boarder side of Bhitthabazar. 4people swept were rescued from 200 meters.

Local people crossing the road cut by Ratu KholaPhoto Courtesy: Rabindra, Kantipur National Daily

Ch

ap

ter 2

The impact on human mortality is causedby major four types of hazard events(epidemics, fire, landslides and floods) in allregions. Epidemics and fire events, mainlyof anthropogenic in origin, are most frequentin the Terai region, and are concentrated inparticular months (seasons); whereaslandslides occur in hill region in monsoonseason. The seasonal calendar for the floodsand landslides clearly depicts that these arerainfall triggered events.

Seasonality of Disasters and itsImpactsDisaster related human deaths and otherlosses show similar seasonality as that fordisaster occurrence with concentrationsduring the months of April to August (Figure2.2). July and August stand out as the twomonth in which the death toll appears to beabout 3 times higher than the average forthe year. The concentration of death patternsduring these months also correlates withthe affected population.

Figure 2.2 confirms it by showing March-

June and also July to October as two mainperiod for epidemics. The figure clearlydepicts two peaks for major hazardsconcentrating in April for epidemics andfire events whereas July and August for floodand landslides. Similar can also be seen forimpact on building damage (referDesInventar database for the pattern of thisseasonality for previous years in more detail,www.desinventar.net).

| 57

Figure 2.2: Seasonality of occurrences ofselected hazard types by monthSource: DesInventar, 2011

There was one human life lost reported fromKailali due to flood. Nearly 200 families gotdisplaced in the district. Building and land ofSaraswati School had been damaged. Around80 houses got flooded in Mahendranagar WardNo 8. Also boarder security post of ArmedPolice Force got inundated.

The raising Mahakali River also breached its

embankment and entered the humansettlements.

(Data source: Various news papers)

LandslideThere were several cases of landslides acrossthe country claiming 67 casualties and affectingmore than 17, 00 people (DesInventar, 2010).

The most affected districts were Taplejung -Sadewa VDC displacing 18 families, 3 casualties,Khamlung VDC, Bajura, Jajarkot, Dolakha,Dhading, Syangja, Kaski and Illam districts. TheShankhuwasabha landslide displaced 280people of 56 families as the rain triggeredlandslide at Shikhuwakhola VDC’s ward no. 4,5 and 6 swept away 12 houses in the district onJune 2010. The landslide had also demolishedthe suspension bridge over Newa Riverconnecting ward no. 4 and 5 of the VDC. It hadalso caused harm to the VDC building, KalikaSecondary school and Balkanya Primary School.As the people fled the scene early, there wasno human casualty.

The highest numbers of casualties has been

Inundated Boarder Security Post of Armed Police Force (APF),MahendranagarPhoto Courtesy: Chitrang Thapa, Kantipur National Daily


Ch

ap

ter

2

Building Destruction and Damageby DisastersMore than 12,000 buildings were eitherdestroyed or damaged by natural disastersduring the year 2010 (Table 2.4). This is ahuge loss for any country, especially for aweak economic country like Nepal. Damageand destruction of buildings could be usedas an important proxy for the estimation ofdirect disaster losses. Therefore, it is

Table 2.4: No. of buildings damaged and destroyed by different typeof disasters in Nepal, 2010

Hazard Types

Flood

Landslide

Fire/forest fire

Epidemics

Hydro-meteorological

Other

Total

No. of records/events

191

148

378

128

267

439

1,551

BuildingDestroyed

1,611

396

2,131

-

89

32

4,259

BuildingDamaged

6,093

255

90

-

1,657

358

8,453

Total (Destroyed& Damaged)

7,704

651

2,221

-

1,746

390

12,712


necessary to analyze the building damageand destruction in more details.

Table 2.4 shows the occurrence of naturaldisasters events with the impact on buildings.Floods, landslides, fire and forest fire standout as the main contributors of disasterrelated losses of buildings. Weather relatedevents also cause building damage at asignificant level.

According to the data for 2010, out of the

58 |

reported from Dolakha with nine deaths, sevenfrom Dhading, and five each from Syangja, Kaskiand Jajarkot districts due to landslides.

Landslides in various parts of the hilly areas havefurther obstructed roads and affectedtransportation. For eg; The vehicular movement

was halted along the Mechi Highway's Ilam-Phidim section on August after landslides atGumbadanda of Pauwasartap VDC-7 ofPanchthar district blocked the road. Thelandslide of Mugling- Narayanghat Sectionobstructed Prithvi Highway. Similarly thevehicular movement was also obstructed insome parts of Dhankuta and Sankhuwasabha

Displaced family in Bhirkot, DolakhaPhoto Courtesy: Ramesh, Nagarik Daily Newspaper

Landslide in KaskiPhoto Courtesy: Kantipur NationalDaily

Ch

ap

ter 2

total buildings damaged and destroyed, about33 percent were destroyed completely.Among this some 61 percent building losswere caused by flood, followed by fire (17%),hydro-meteorological events (14 %) andlandslides (5%) (Figure 2.3). The ratios ofbuildings destroyed and damaged could beused for shelter response planning. The ratiovaries for different disasters. Further, averageratio of building damage per event is 1: 8.2;in other words each event causes damageof more than 8 building.

Economic Loss due to Disastersin year 2010An estimation made by ConsortiumEvaluación de Riesgos Naturales - AméricaLatina (ERN-AL, 2011) for the economicloss due to disasters in Nepal using theDesInventar database show losses causedby hydro-meteorological events have beenequal or greater than US$ 1 million at least5 times per year, more than US$ 10 millionat least once every 2 years and more thanUS$ 100 million at least once every 39 years.

Whereas for all hazards, the losses accountequal to or greater than US$ 1 million atleast 6 times per year, US$ 10 million at leasttwice every three years and US$ 100 millionat least once every 13 years (GAR CountryReport, 2011).

Economic losses due to small, medium and

| 59

Figure 2.3: Effect of natural disasters inbuilding damage by hazard types 2010Source: DesInventar, 2011

districts for one day due to the landslides.

The incessant rain triggered landslides andobstructed several rural hill roads in Gulmidistrict. Landslide in Ghamir VDC engulfed 47years old Chhote Darji. He was rescued aliveand sent to Mission Hospital Palpa for thetreatment. Floods in Hugdikhola, Letekholaand Lumdikhola has obstructed road alongRidi-Rudrabeni-Wamitaksar section. Also thereports of landslides disturbed passage fromTamghas to Simaltari, Purkot Daha, Shantipur,Ridi Balkot and also Sandhikharka.

Landslide at Koralkhola section of Dr. KI SinghHighway has affected passengers travellingfrom Dadeldhura to Doti. Karnali Highway alsogot badly affected.

EpidemicIn the year 2010 the greatest loss of life wasdue to epidemic claiming 130 deathsthroughout the country.

Following the monsoon rains (June-July) anda contamination of drinking water sources,diarrhea cases were on the rise in several

districts. Eight diarrhoea-related deaths havebeen reported in Banke, five in Dang and fourin Gorkha districts. In Nepalgunj, Banke district,Vibrio Cholerae has been detected in 14 out of21 stool samples from patients suffering fromdiarrhoea. Over 1200 cases were reported andtreated at the three major hospitals in the city.

Landslide affected Dr. KI Singh Highway in DadeldhuraPhoto Courtesy: Mohan Shahi, Kantipur National Daily


Ch

ap

ter

2

large disasters are very significant. In termsof direct economic loss (reported andestimated), a total of NRs 10,735 millionfor the period of 2010 was estimated (inyear 2010 price index). Of this 3, percentcorresponds to destruction of buildingswhile 53 per cent corresponds to hectaresof damaged agricultural land and forest.This is equivalent to about 1 percent of thecountry's annual development budget (Fiscalyear 2067/68)- 2009/2010.

Table 2.5 shows calculated and reportedvalues of disaster loss. The table comparesthe economic loss due to disaster eventswith total GDP of the country. About 1percent of GDP can be seen as the directloss due to disasters during the year 2010.This figure does not include the indirecteconomic impacts of disasters in sectorslike agriculture, health, education etc.

Apart from this (calculation based onDesInventar database), the Ministry ofHome Affairs (MoHA/GoN) and

60 |

According to DPHO Banke, the main reasonbehind the increased number of diarrhoea caseswere polluted water sources and water supplylines, the contamination of water as a result ofthe recent floods, the lack of a proper drainage

system and the lack of personal andenvironmental sanitation awareness in thesociety.

FireIn the year 2010 Fire (fire/forest fire) was oneof the most frequently occurring disasterevents claiming 61 deaths in the year andaffecting more than 10,000 people across thecountry. Fire has wreaked havoc in severaldistricts, destroying hundreds of houses andproperties worth millions of rupees.

Some of the major fire incidents were that ofAurahi-6, Siraha, where four persons wereinjured and 75 houses were gutted in a fire.According to the police, property worth Rs 1crore was destroyed in the fire. The fire wasbrought under control this evening with effortsfrom locals, police and army personnel and afire tender from Lahan municipality. In yetanother incident in Hakpada-6, Siraha, twenty-six houses were destroyed in a blaze onSaturday along with one casualty in theincident.

Treatment to patients of diarrhoea laying on the floor in BheriZonal Hospital, beds were over occupiedPhoto Courtesy: Janak, Kantipur National Daily

Methodology forCalculation ofEconomic lossThe calculation of directeconomic losses due to disastershas been estimated with theprocedure followed by DIMSNepal (DesInventar, 2005). Themajor attributes considered forthe calculation were: 1) reporteddirect loss in monetary form(Nepalese Rupees - NRs), 2) theloss of buildings (buildingdestruction and buildingdamage), 3) road damage, 4) lossof agricultural land, and 5) loss oflivestock. The calculations arebased on average market price ofthe assets in year 2010.

Ch

ap

ter 2

Department of Water Induced DisasterPrevention (DWIDP) database has alsoproduced estimated value of disaster lossin the year 2010 as NRs. 1,398.19 million.The estimated loss due to floods landslides,and avalanches has been presented as NRs.3,829.35 million. (DWIDP, 2011: 20).

Comparing with other database such as EM-DAT compiled by CRED, Nepal does notrecord any significant disaster event in 2010

Table 2.5: Loss due to all types of disasters compared to gross domestic products

Sector of LossBuilding DestructionBuilding DamageRoadAgriculture LandLivestockTotal SectoralReported Monetary LossTotal Loss

Total Loss in Million NRs.494.38131.290.488300.7320.098946.961788.7910735.75

% of GDP of year 2010*0.0420.0110.0000.7080.0020.7630.1530.916

*Total GDP for year 2010 is NRs. 1171.9 billion, Source: Economic Survey of Nepal, 2011Source: DesInventar, 2011

attracting international concern. Although,year 2010 has not recorded intensive disasterevent (see Box 2.1 for extensive and intensivedisaster risks) like Koshi Flood (of 2008),or any earthquake events; however, the totalloss scenario shows equivalent to 1 percentof GDP is lost by small and medium sizeddisasters (of extensive in nature), which isvery significant for country like Nepal. Theindirect loss has not been considered incalculation of economic loss. The majority

| 61

In Kapilvastu, three persons were killed and 30injured in a fire that also gutted 150 houses andsheds of 70 families in Ganeshpur-7, Gedawajod,of Kapilvastu.

The Duhabi, Sunsari fire that broke out in themorning destroyed 40 houses at Duhabi Villagedevelopment Committee (VDC) of Sunsari. Thefire started from 4 am suddenly and gutted

down 40 houses of 15 families. Police said thatproperty worth Rs. 10 million was destroyed inthe fire. The fire had damaged Rs. 400,000property and six houses were gutted down onWednesday.

During the dry season, many incidents ofoutbreak of fire had taken place at the easternBanke causing a loss of huge amount of propertyand houses. Around two weeks ago, one persondied and one hundred houses were gutted in

Fire in Hakpada-6 of Siraha districtPhoto Courtesy: Dev Narayan Shah, Kantipur National Daily


Ch

ap

ter

2

62 |

Figure 2.5: Major peaks of impact in termsof deaths due to intensive disasters in 2010Source: DesInventar, 2011

Figure 2.4: Trend of reported loss value inDesInventar Database for Nepal 1971-2010,by decadesSource: DesInventar, 2011

of events in this year are small and mediumsized.

In terms of reported direct loss, the trendhas been found increasing every decade(Figure 2.4). The reason behind this couldbe better reporting as well as increasedvulnerability of the properties, especiallyincreasing fire events.

Loss in terms of Intensive andExtensive DisasterExtensive disaster is mainly characterizedby frequently occurring, low and mediumintensity disasters, whereas intensive disasterare those infrequent, high intensity and veryconcentrated spatially. Extensive disastersare main caused for damage to propertywhereas, the intensive disasters are maincontributor for higher mortality. Not onlyin developing countries, extensive disastersare major contributor to mortality indeveloped countries (GAR, 2010). However,small disasters are local in its extent andfrequent with notable accumulated social

the worst case of fire in Narinapur

In Udayapur, fire broke out at Galfadiya ofTapeshwori VDC-1 on Sunday, killing KamalaKhatri, 26, and razing 15 houses and sheds.

In Sindhuli, 17 huts and cowsheds weredestroyed when a blaze engulfed Bekhataadiof Tinkanya VDC-1 Police said property worthseven million rupees was destroyed there.

Fifty houses were gutted in a fire in LohajaraVDC of Saptari destroying property worth Rs 5million and rendering 18 families homeless.

In Dang/Banke, three persons were killed in thefire while more than 50 houses were burnt toashes. Similarly sixty-seven huts of landlesspeople were gutted in fire in Bandarjhula ofAyodhyapuri-9, Chitwan. The fire that hadstarted in the houses from 4 pm on Friday wasbrought under control only on Saturday noon.

In Dhankuta, the forest fire, which had spreadin Thapchuwa, destroyed seven houses causingthe loss of property worth NRs. 1 million and

even claimed two lives. Similarly five houses weregutted in a fire in Kandbari municipality-5, Sekahain Sankhuwasabha destroying property worthNRs. 7 million.

In Rautahat, 16 houses in a Muslim village ofMalhiniya Tole in Rajpur Tulsi VDC were destroyedin a fire. Four houses were also destroyed in afire in Bharouliya of Swathi VDC in Nawalparasi.

In Rolpa, one person was killed and 12 injured ina fire at Gaurigaun in Rolpa. Fire that startedfrom Bachchapaile community forest was out ofcontrol and around 54 houses were destroyedand more than 600 villagers were affected.

In Gaighat, the wildfire that broke out in theKhanbu Community Forest in Khanbu VDC ofUdaypur destroyed four houses and cowsheds.

There were various other cases of spreading ofwildfire that have destroyed hundreds ofhectares of forestland in Parbat, Bhojpur districts,, Bandevi and Dharampani forests in Palpa.,Sankhuwasabha, Sindhuli and Tehrathumdistricts.

Ch

ap

ter 2


Ch

ap

ter

2

64 |

Figure 2.6: Loss of human lives by districtsduring 2009 (above) and 2010 (below)Source: DesInventar, 2011

Figure 2.7: Loss of human lives due to major disaster events in Nepal in year 2009 and 2010.Source: DesInventar, 2011

damanged in the year 2010. In both yearsfire and flood events are the major cause ofloss. In terms of reported loss value due tothese particular events about NRs. 36 millionhas been reported for the year 2009, andabout NRs. 30 million has been reportedfor 2010. The year 2009 has more reportsand higher loss records for landslides.

The number of people reported affected(143,000 per year) remained stable in 2010,compared to the previous years in average.However, the number of affected peoplefor year 2009 is about 377 thousand. Thisdepicts that the year 2010 has significantlow reports and thereby low level of humanlives loss as compared to the year 2009.The year 2009 has significant level of reportson human casualties due to epidemics mostlyfrom Tarai region of the country.

Comparison of 2010 withdisaster data of past 5 year’sAlong with the increase in occurrence ofdisaster events, there is also a high increasein the average annual losses in the year. From2005 up to 2007, there was moderate growthtrend of disaster occurrence and associatedhuman death. After 2007, the trend hasshown excessive increase in both occurrencesof disaster events as well as casualties. Duringthis period, the drastic change in the patternof disaster deaths is caused due to floodsand landslides. Notable is the fact that theoverall scenario of deaths and buildingdestruction is dominated by small andmedium sized events which also have highimpact on losses in aggregate.

Annual time-series distribution of the effectof disasters on human deaths is shown in

Ch

ap

ter 2

| 65

Figure 2.8: Annual time series distributionof disaster occurrence and human deaths,

2005-2010Source: DesInventar, 2011

Figure 2.8. This figure shows that the years2008, 2009 and 2010 consisted the mostsevere episodes of human deaths. Therewere significant damage and destruction tobuildings in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Theseyears were characterized by high rainfallsand excessive occurrence of floods andlandslides.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) is the apexauthority for collection and dissemination ofdisaster data in Nepal. Primarily, collection ofdisaster related data, especially those pertainingto deaths, injury and building damages is doneby the office of the Chief District Officer (CDO)through its police network. The data is thenreported to Disaster Management Section ofMoHA, where the data is consolidated andreleased selectively. The MoHA disaster databaserecords location, deaths, injury, loss of livestock,damage to buildings, land and otherinfrastructures (road sector, bridge, water supply,electricity) etc. Main purpose of MoHA databaseis to coordinate with national and internationalorganizations to carry out works related to reliefoperation. Since 1993, the Department of WaterInduced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP) has beenpublishing the MoHA data on disasters due tofloods and landslides.

For large scale disasters, damage assessment isusually done by relevant specialized agencies suchas Ministry of Agriculture, Epidemiology andDisease Control Division (EDCD), Department ofRoads etc. The Ministry of Agriculture carries outthe damage assessment for the purpose ofrehabilitation of the agricultural land and crops,especially those damaged by floods andlandslides. Similarly EDCD, Department of HealthServices (DHS) of Ministry of Health is tasked withcontrolling the epidemic events throughout thecountry and also to record the effects of epidemicevents. The EDCD database is therefore focusedon health issues. The Department of Roads (DoR),collects data related to damage of road sector,targeting program on repair and maintenance ofroads.

The government agencies, notably, theDepartment of Hydrology and Meteorology(DHM) conducts regular field monitoring usingnationwide network of hydrologic andclimatologic monitoring stations. The Departmentof Mines and Geology (DMG) conductsearthquake monitoring using its 21 short periodseismic stations evenly located in a network thatis spread over the country. While these data areimportant for understanding the nature ofparticular hazard types, they are important alsoto organize relief and rehabilitation. Usually theseagencies make the information for disseminationto public.

Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention(DWIDP) collects data on various types of water-induced disaster events such as soil erosion,landslides, debris flow, flood, bank erosion etc.including GLOFs and other monsoon rainsassociated disaster events (DWIDP, 2011).

Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) collects disasterdata aiming the evaluation of relief to disastervictims. NRCS collects data from the affectedareas using its nationwide network of districtchapters and local circles. It collects and collatesinformation from others sources too. Forexample, NRCS collaborates with Nepal Police incollecting damage data.

Hazard events occurred in Nepal for the periodafter 1971 have been also recorded and maintainedin a database by National Society for EarthquakeTechnology - Nepal (NSET). Details of events andtheir impacts on human lives, properties arerecorded in DesInventar System and are availablein the DesInventar database. This database hasserved as an important tool for various analysis.

Disaster Information System in Nepal


Ch

ap

ter

2

1 For details on the conception, methodology and use ofDesInventar see: www.desinventar.org, especially themethodological and user manuals presented there. Consultalso the work of LA RED-OSSO for UNDP-ISDR. ComparativeAnalysis of Databases de disasters EmDat-DesInventar formore detail January 2003, at www.desenredando.org. ForDesInventar Database of Nepal, see: www.desinventar.netor www.nset.org.np

66 |

NSET with financial and technical support fromUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)in the year 2003 endeavored to establish asystematic data inventory of natural disasterevents in Nepal. A standard data collection formatwas developed and used to capture the data fromdifferent sources and entered into the"DesInventar System". The effort concludedpreparing comprehensive database of all disastersoccurred during 33 years (1971-2003). Later, NSETcontinued to update the data on regular basiswith its own resources for subsequent years. Upto date data is available in the DesInventardatabase.

DesInventar1 is an inventory system, to registerdata about characteristics and effects of diversetypes of natural disasters, from global or nationalscales and/or local level. This includes a softwaresystem with two main components a) DesInventarmodule - which is a relational and structuraldatabase through which the data is fed by fillingin predefined fields and b) DesConsultar modulethat allows access to the database by queries thatmay include relations among the diverse variablesof effects, types of events, causes, sites, dates,

etc. including queries with tables, graphics andthematic maps. This was developed andsuccessfully implemented by The Social StudiesNetwork for Disasters Prevention in Latin America(LARED).

The DesInventar Database of Nepal collects theinformation from published print media (i.e. dailynewspapers) on daily basis. The information isrefined with different level of verification. Theattributes of such of the date includes - (hazard)type, cause, occurrence date, administrativelocation of the event. In addition to this, thesystem collects information on the impact ofhazard event with information on number ofdeaths and injury (casualties), number of housingdestroyed and damaged, number of affectedpopulation. The impact of event is also recorded.

Nepal DesInventar database includes attributeson the identified 27 types of hazard. As per theirsource of origin, these hazard types as theyappear in the system are further categorizedbroadly into six categories of the events for thepresent purpose of categorization (Table 2.6).

In the database, different types of losses arerecorded, as a) reported loss due to particularevent, which is directly mentioned in the sourceof information, and b) calculated loss which is anestimate of the total value ofproperty/infrastructure losses associated witheach event.

Global DatabaseThe emergency events database known asEM-DAT maintained by Centre for Researchon the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)has been the only comprehensive globaldatabase on disaster events. It containsessential core data on the occurrence andimpacts of disasters worldwide dating from1900 to the present. Main objectives of thisdatabase are to assist humanitarian actionat both national and international levels; torationalize decision making for disasterpreparedness; and to provide objective basisfor vulnerability assessment and prioritysetting.

This database collects any disasterinformation using the criteria at least oneof the following fulfilled: a) 10 or morepeople reported killed, b) 100 or more peoplereported affected, c) declaration of a stateof emergency, d) call for internationalassistance. Large-scale disasters alwaysdramatically and immediately attract attentionof people and institutions includinghumanitarian agencies and media. Anexample of such event is Koshi Flood of2008 in Nepal which fall within the criteriaby CRED and is included into the database.

Ch

ap

ter 2

| 67

Hazard Type

Earthquake

Epidemics

Landslides

Hydro-meteorological

Floods

Fire

Others

Events (as appeared in DesInventar Database of Nepal)

Earthquake

Epidemics, Plague

Landslide, Avalanche

Cold wave, Drought, Famine, Hailstorm, Heat wave, Heavy rains,Rains, Snow storm, Storm, Strong wind, Thunderstorm

Floods, GLOFs and flash floods

Fire and Forest fires

Boat capsize, Explosion, Panic, Pollution, Structure collapse,Biological, and Others

Table 2.6: Events catagories as per the Hazard Type


On the other side, numerous medium andsmaller-scale disasters occuring in everycountry which do not meet such (asmentioned by CRED) criteria are alwaysmissing from such database in many casesand also do not attract so much of attentionof governments. This can be seen in Nepal'scase too. For example, EM-DAT has norecord of disaster event in Nepal for 2010,but Nepal DesInventar Database collects asignificant amount of data related to smalland medium scale disasters at local level.The cumulative impact of such small andmedium sized disasters could be quitesignificant for any country or region whichremain unnoticed in the global database.The DesInventar database captures all typesof disaster events of all sizes.

Discrepancies in Disaster DataThe discrepancies in the data from differentdatabases maintained in Nepal are mainlydue to the differences in coverage and extentof disasters, standards used in data collectionsystem, definition of disaster events andcriteria used and most importantly thepurpose of data collected. Majority of datacomes from relief and rescue provided bygovernment and other humanitarian

purposes. The data for the use forreconstruction and rehabilitation purposesare least collected. For example, the datacollected in the districts by DDRC andNRCS mechanism are focused onhumanitarian and relief purposes whereasDWIDP data is more oriented towardsreconstruction and mitigation purposes.

On the other hand, criteria and standardsused by data collector are also the majorcontribution of these discrepancies. Thereis lack of common standards for disasterdata collection in terms of its format as wellas with stated objective of the collectionmechanism. The same dataset is consideredto be good for relief as well as forreconstruction and rehabilitation but notvery meaningful for other purposes. Due tothese variation, the data induce problem forwider use.

DesInventar System also has some cruciallimitations. Gorkhapatra National Daily istaken as the conclusive source for the earlyperiod and specific government records(MoHA and DWIDP reports)for recentyears. Therefore, the accuracy of the findingslargely depends on the accuracy of datasource. Number of data-cards does not


Ch

ap

ter

2

reflect the number of events. Natural eventswith same nature are generalized. Forexample: debris flow is included intolandslide and all types of transferable diseaseaffecting community are included intoepidemic. The qualitative losses are calculatedwith the current general valuation of thelosses to find out the overall losses. Hence,the loss values may not be absolutely truein terms of monetary value.

By using standardized and comprehensivedatabase management system in disasterdata collection, this discrepancies can beminimized for much wider use by allstakeholders. The incompatibility amongdisaster databases can also be minimizedand the data can be made more meaningful.

ConclusionsThe DesInventar database has been servingas a significant source of information ondisasters in Nepal for the period of 1971onwards. This gives an important andcomprehensive information for historicalevents occurred in Nepal as reported indifferent media sources. Primarily, the presentreport has evaluate d the disaster scenariosand losses from the DesInventar of database.The impact of disasters were evaluated interms of tangible losses including humancasualties (deaths and injury), affectedpopulation, impact on housing (buildingdestroyed and damaged), loss of livestock,loss of agriculture land/crop and reporteddirect loss. The secondary losses due to

events has not been evaluated. Thecalculations for economic loss has beenmade based on the direct physical losses andcompared to the GDP of the country for2010.

During the year 2010, though the databasehas not recorded large disaster events aspreviously occurred like Koshi Flood of2008 in eastern Nepal and diarrhoealoutbreak Mid-Western and Far-Westerndistricts however, this year still records largenumber of deaths and significant impact oneconomy. About 1 percent of GDP is recor-ded lost by disasters of varied intensities.The disasters recorded during this year wereflash floods, inundation and landslidesthroughout the country as a result ofincessent rains after 21 August 2010, fireevents in April destroying about 500 housesin different part of the country, andepidemics and cold waves were very frequentin months of January, April and August.

The data has given significant oversight forthe dominance of small and medium sizeevents as well as associated economic loss.Estimation and comparison shows one ofthe good application of such data for varioussector of disaster risk reduction withimproved understanding in DRR. The datahas also been used for pioneeringapplications in risk assessment (for exampleapplying the methodology used in the GAR2009) and also it has helped to prioritizedisaster risk reduction planning at differentlevels in the country.

68 |

Ch

ap

ter 2

Tabl

e 2.

7: E

cono

mic

loss

es d

ue to

dis

aste

rs, 2

010

% of

GDP

0.02

50.

000

0.34

2

0.01

00.

001

0.06

40.

000

0.00

80.

001

0.19

6

0.00

60.

013

0.02

3

0.00

00.

000

0.02

10.

708

Live

stoc

k

264,

000

3,12

0,00

090

0,00

0

5,65

2,00

096

,000

888,

000

0 6,13

2,00

021

6,00

036

,000

348,

000

1,800

,000

312,

000

36,0

000 28

8,00

020

,088

,000

% of

GDP

0.00

00.

000

0.00

0

0.00

00.

000

0.00

00.

000

0.00

10.

000

0.00

0

0.00

00.

000

0.00

0

0.00

00.

000

0.00

00.

002

Repo

rted

Mon

etor

y

261,2

39,0

0050

,350

,000

730,

124,

000

29,7

80,0

0031

,750

,000

58,3

85,0

0014

9,07

3,00

0

144,

884,

752

108,

404,

000

37,8

50,0

00

27,0

91,0

0020

,490

,000

133,

932,

000

2,80

0,00

015

0,00

02,

485,

500

1,788

,788

,252

% of

GDP

0.02

20.

004

0.06

2

0.00

30.

003

0.00

50.

013

0.01

20.

009

0.00

3

0.00

20.

002

0.01

1

0.00

00.

000

0.00

00.

153

Deve

lopm

ent /

Phys

iogr

aphi

cRe

gion

Loss

es V

alue

(NRs

.) (c

ompa

red

to th

e GD

P at

curr

ent p

rice

of th

e ye

ar 2

009/

10, v

alue

1183

bill

ion

NRs)

East

ern

Hill

Mou

ntai

nTa

rai

Cent

ral

Hill

Mou

ntai

nTa

rai

Kath

man

du V

alle

yW

este

rnHi

llM

ount

ain

Tara

iM

id W

este

rnHi

llM

ount

ain

Tara

iFa

r Wes

tern

Hill

Mou

ntai

nTa

rai

Tota

l

Build

ing

Dest

ruct

ion

30,7

47,5

0011

,023

,000

194,

592,

000

96,6

52,5

002,

711,0

0017

,393

,000

2,74

8,00

0

14,5

17,5

0079

2,00

028

,433

,000

28,4

38,5

005,

632,

000

18,7

98,0

00

9,19

8,00

024

,112,

000

8,58

7,50

049

4,37

5,50

0

% of

GDP

0.00

30.

001

0.01

7

0.00

80.

000

0.00

10.

000

0.00

10.

000

0.00

2

0.00

20.

000

0.00

2

0.00

10.

002

0.00

10.

042

Build

ing

Dam

aged

*

6,18

1,550

654,

900

34,3

46,6

50

2,10

4,40

027

2,80

02,

474,

850

1,483

,050

2,82

7,20

08,

800

20,2

69,9

50

1,615

,800

136,

550

7,09

1,100

2,66

0,60

036

0,80

048

,797

,150

131,2

86,15

0

% of

GDP

0.00

10.

000

0.00

3

0.00

00.

000

0.00

00.

000

0.00

00.

000

0.00

2

0.00

00.

000

0.00

1

0.00

00.

000

0.00

40.

011

Road

Dam

aged

- - - - - - - 480,

000

- - - - - - - - 480,

000

% of

GDP

- - - - - - - 0.00

0- - - - - - - - 0.

000

Agric

ultu

re a

nd F

ores

tDa

mag

ed (H

a)

290,

470,

000

0 4,01

2,55

0,50

0

112,

704,

500

6,15

0,00

074

4,57

2,50

00 97

,082

,250

7,37

5,00

02,

294,

250,

000

67,5

45,0

0015

0,00

0,00

027

1,855

,250

0 600,

000

245,

575,

000

8,30

0,73

0,00

0

*GD

P da

ta, N

epal

for t

he y

ear o

f 201

0/11

wer

e us

ed fo

r the

est

imat

eSo

urce

: Ec

onom

ic S

urve

y, 2

010/

11, V

ol.1,

GoN

, MoF

Jul

y 20

11

| 69


Floods and landslides caused by torrential monsoon rains in the Southern districts of Banke,Bardiya, Dhanusa, Siraha and Saptari

Photo Courtesy: www.wfp.org / WFP/James Giambrone

CHAPTER 3 : IMPACTS ANDLESSONS OF MAJOR PAST

DISASTERS

| 71

72 |

People stranded as the road washed away by the Koshi Flood, 2008Photo Courtesy: http://bordernepal.wordpress.com

Ch

ap

ter 3

Figure 3.2: Sectorwise lossSource: Thapa, N., 1988

The 1988 Udaypur EarthquakeEvent ScenarioIn August 20, 1988 after 54 years of theoccurrence of the great Bihar-Nepalearthquake, Nepal was hit by anotherearthquake of medium size (Magnitude: 6.5Richter scale) at 04 Hrs. 55 Min. local time.It rocked the entire Eastern and part of theCentral Development Regions. Its epicentrewas at Udaypur, about 160 km southeast ofKathmandu. It lasted about 40 secondsaffecting 22 districts. The epicentral intensitywas found to be VIII MMI in Katari, Dharanand Dhankuta which suffered a higher orderof damage. Structural damage and othereffects were seen in intensity zone VII andVI also. There were 6 major aftershockswith magnitude greater than 4 Richter scale.The common ground effects that wereobserved are surface faulting and groundfissuring, landslides, liquefaction, lateralspreads, ground oscillation and sand boils.(Dixit, A. M. & Koirala, A, 1989).

Human CasualtyThe quake left 721 people dead and 6,553

people injured (1657 seriously injured and4896 minor injured). The earthquake claimed668 lives in Eastern Development Regionand 53 in Central Development Region.Highest death toll was seen in Sunsari districtwith 138 followed by Panchthar andUdayapur district. (Thapa, N., 1988)

Sector wise Loss (Direct)

The estimated total direct economic losswas 5 billion NRs (JICA 2002). The damagein dollar value was to housing ($78.5 million),followed by roads and bridges ($62.4 million)and schools ($32 million). The total directestimate of damage was $ 172 million(Kreimer, A. & Preece, M., 2002).

Damage to Housing and otherbuildingsThe earthquake left more than 460,000persons homeless. A total of 64,174 privatehouses were damaged among which 21,976were completely damaged and 42,198 wereseriously damaged which could not be usedfurther. 468 public buildings, 790Government buildings, 158 Village

Chapter 3

| 73

Impacts and Lessons of Major Past Disasters

Figure 3.1: Earthquake intensity mapSource: Department of Mines and Geology


Ch

ap

ter

3

Roads Damage

Damages to roads were mainly due toliquefaction, ground fissuring, landslides andembankment failures. About 1.5 Km roadsegment of Dharan-Dhankuta Road sectionof Koshi Highway was breached nearBhedetar, Dhankuta district due to debrisslide and rockfall. Traffic was closed forseveral months. Similarly road embankmentfailure and ground fissuring due toliquefaction was seen in Biratnagar-Dharanroad section of Koshi Highway. A 100 m.long stretch of the gravel road of MahendraHighway-Dhanusha road near Sarsa village,Dhanusha district was seen damaged witha subsidence of 30 cm due to the causativephenomenon of liquefaction, groundfissuring, embankment failure. The road wasrepaired by filling and compaction. Similarly,a 300 m. long stretch of Mahendra highway-Katari road near Phulbaria Village, Siraha

Panchayat buildings and 150 religious siteswere damaged. Similarly, 346 schools werecompletely damaged while 604 schools wereseriously damaged which could not be usedfurther. (Thapa, N., 1988)

Regarding damage to buildings, the followingfacts were observed• Adobe type of buildings collapsed

extensively in the middle belt of EasternTerai.

• Mud mortared stone masonry buildingsin the hilly region sustained heavy damagestructurally.

• Old 2-3 storey brick masonry buildingssustained serious cracks in the walls.

• Cement mortared brick construction andRC frame structures performed ratherfairly well.

• Landslide and ground fissuring werepartly the causes of damage of buildingsin Lower intensity zones.

Livestock loss

It was reported that the earthquake took thelife of about 1566 cattles throughout thecountry with 1341 in Eastern DevelopmentRegion and 225 in Central DevelopmentRegion. (Thapa, N., 1988)

Figure 3.4: The damage of roadin Koshi Highway

Figure 3.3: Building damage in Naya Bazar ofDharan

district and a 250 m. long stretch of roadembankment of Mahendra Highway-Gaighatroad near Kadamaha, Siraha district showedslumping and fissuring. Subsidence in severalsegments in 10-30 Km of Phidim-Taplejungroad was seen near Bharepa, Panchthardistrict due to debris slide. The road was

74 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

closed for several months. (Dixit, A. M. &Koirala, A, 1989)

Bridges and Culverts

Displacement of individual spans of themultispanned bridges was noticed in manyrivers. A shortening of the bridge by 17 cm.was monitored at Gehri Bridge which hada span of 20.7 m. A majority of the culvertsin Kamala-Biring Khola stretch of theMahendra Highway showed conspicuousdisplacement of approach slabs on eitherabutment by the earthquake which wasaccompanied by a settlement of 10-25 cm.Development of cracks (3-5 cm wide) withrelative displacement and undulation of theindividual blocks of causeways were noticedat the crossings of Bagaha river in Daurivillage, Gaighat road and at the Mauli rivercross ing of Mahendra Highway.Development of tension cracks wereobserved in the abutments of the bridgesacross Urikhola, Ratuwa and Mawa rivers.Reinforced Concrete (RC) resting pad oneach of the three piers of a four-span bridgein Duhabi River showed shear failure. Thebridge was pushed into the left abutmentby some mm. In some bridges, displacementwas seen along construction joints. (Dixit,A. M. & Koirala, A, 1989)

Irrigation Canals

Many hill irrigation canals in intensity zonesVIII-VII were breached or covered by theinduced landslide and others started leakingalong the ground fissures developed by theseismic loading. Of the irrigation canals inTarai, only the Kamala west main canalshowed horizontal longitudinal crack alongthe side wall and longitudinal fissures in thebed while the minor canal from tube wellNo. 4 of Bhagwanpur village of Sirahadistrict was damaged due to shearing andtensioning at several places. Similar effectswere seen in other lined canals in Tarai.(Dixit, A. M. & Koirala, A, 1989)

Dug and Tube Wells

Almost all of the dug wells within theliquefaction zones in the Terai regionexperienced the phenomena of sandintrusion which filled them up partially orwholly with sand resulting into water spillingover the brim. The water was muddy formany subsequent days which led to ashortage of clean drinking water in thevillages. A good majority of the hand tubewells within the area started flowing withoutbeing pumped. It lasted for several days inmany cases. In the eastern part of Sirahadistrict many of the bamboo borings ofdepth 6-12 m. driven to tap artesian waterfor irrigation got plugged for the wholedepth by the intruded sand. Deep tube wells(Depth 100 m.) bored for tapping groundwater for irrigation in Bhagwanpur villageof Siraha district was ejected but by severalcm. damaging the foundation and connectingshaft to the driving engine. (Dixit, A. M. &Koirala, A, 1989)

Indirect Impact

According to CBS Statistical Yearbook 1995and Economic Survey, the Ministry ofFinance, 1995, the total hazard loss due todisaster was NRs. 6,099 million which is23.69 % of GDP (The GDP was NRs.25,749 million) and 64.69% of Developmentexpenditure (The Development expenditurewas NRs. 9,428 million) in the year 1988when the country was struck by easternNepal earthquake. The effect was seen insubsequent year as well. In 1989, it was15.34% of GDP and 33.84% ofDevelopment expenditure. Three percent(about $14 million) of the 1989 fiscal year’sdevelopment budget was allocated forreconstruct ion and rehabi l i tat ion.

Relief Effort

The government of Nepal mounted an initialrelief operation for the affected areas,coordinated by the Ministry of Housing and

| 75


Ch

ap

ter

3

Physical Planning (MHPP). Constitution ofa Central Earthquake Affected AreasReconstruction and Rehabil itat ionCommittee (CEAARRC) under thechairmanship of the Minister of Housingand Physical Planning, responsible forcoordinating the programme was done.Government undertook needs assessmentand mobilized Army, Police, Nepal RedCross and Local Government and RastriyaPanchayat (parliament) representatives toprovide relief. This relief included care forthe injured, financial compensation toindividuals and communities, and somematerials for emergency shelter. Governmentformally decided on 24 August to requestinternational relief assistance. Donors wereadvised to contribute cash grants to procureemergency items. Medicine and food wasthe first priority and second priority itemscomprise: heavy duty plastic sheetingblankets, cloth (not used clothing),tents/temporary shelter, gabion wire,corrugated iron sheets, polyethylene pipes,mobile hospitals and ambulances. As a result,donation of NRs. 47,202,861.16 from foreigncountries and of NRs. 42,848,410.71 frominternal organizations and individuals werereceived. According to UNDRO SituationReport, the contributions made from UNsystem to GoN was US$ 76,000 and thatfrom NGOs was US$ 465,800 while thatfrom different governments was US$2,242,992 (UN Department of HumanitarianAffairs)

Relief Money

Government provided relief money of NRs2,000 for a death, NRs 1,000 for loss of ahouse to the earthquake affected people. Atotal of NRs. 62,152,900 (NRs. 1,442,000for death and NRs. 60,710,900 for loss ofa house) was distributed to those people.(Thapa, N., 1988)

Food Distribution

Government provided 40 kg of rice per

family for the affected families. In Sunsaridistrict, it was increased to 80 kg per familyhaving more than 5 members in the familywhereas it was reduced to 20 kg per familyin those districts which were less affected.25,842.64 kg of rice amounting to NRs.24,850,000.00 was distributed in total.(Thapa, N., 1988)

Figure 3.5: Relief materialsdistribution

Medicines

About 103 medical doctors were sent fromKathmandu to affected areas of EasternDevelopment Region. 5542.60 kg medicineswere distributed in Eastern DevelopmentRegion and Sindhuli district of CentralDevelopment Region. Medicines amountingto NRs. 2,192,646.18 were received fromHome Ministry, Health Ministry, WorldHealth Organizations, foreign countries,different organizations and individuals.5305.50 kg medicines amounting to NRs.11,820,780.73 were distributed to earthquakeaffected people. (Thapa, N., 1988)

Shelter

Plastic sheets for emergency shelter wereprovided immediately by GoN. 271,448Plastic sheets amounting to NRs.10,109,796.71 were distributed for theaffected people. Apart from plastic sheets,481 Shade traps, 22,155 blankets, 427 ground

76 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

sheets, 20,073 utensils, 27,130 clothes, 80trousers, 48 rolls of tarpaulin along withnylon ropes, folding beds, and corrugatediron sheets were also distributed to supportthe shelter response. (Thapa, N., 1988)

Recovery and Reconstruction Efforts

GoN requested support from the donorcommunity including InternationalDevelopment Association (IDA) for housingand the Asian Development Bank for roadreconstruction. Government together withUnited Nations system and interesteddonors, worked on identification of post-disaster needs. Preliminary requirementswere pre-fabricated housing constructioncomponents, cement, iron rods, baileybridges. UNDP/UNDRO providedtechnical assistance. The governmentapproached various donor agencies for grantand loan assistance to carry out the recoveryand rehabilitation works. The ADB providedemergency assistance in reconstructing roads,bridges and public buildings damaged in theearthquake. The World Bank through IDAprovided a loan of NRs. 1,062,400,000equivalent to US$ 41.5 million to GoN forNepal Municipal Development andEar thquake Emergency Hous ingReconstruction Project in which a housingreconstruction component was appendedto the already appraised MunicipalDevelopment Project. (The World Bank,1997)

The Recovery and Reconstruction phasestarted from September 20, 1988. The policyadopted by the government was thepreference for loan rather than grantassistance to the affected households, eventhough World Bank guidelines permitemergency relief to be in the form of grants.GoN launched a comprehensive programof reconstruction and rehabilitation onSeptember 22, 1988. The Nepal EarthquakeAffected Areas Reconstruction andRehabilitation Project (EAARRP) was one

of them to execute a credit and technicalassistance program for reconstruction ofearthquake damaged houses. Projectsincluded the Housing Loan Program andthe smokeless stove ('chulo') and improvedlatrine ('charpi') construction. MHPP wasassigned overall responsibil ity forcoordination of the national reconstructionrehabilitation effort. House reconstructionloans were implemented by the three majorNepalese Banks-RBB, NBL and ADB. Underthe EAARRP Project Office, there were tworegional offices and 27 district offices eachheaded by a district engineer, some 254overseers and sub overseers for the housingreconstruction program in the affecteddistricts. They were all given initial trainingin basic earthquake resistance technologyfor housing. Based on the location of thehouse, there were three types of loans: Ruralloans maximum of NRs. 10,000, DistrictCenter loans maximum of NRs. 20,000, andNagar Panchayat or urban loans maximumof NRs. 50,000. The repayment terms werea) First Rs. 5,000: 1% interest for 8 yearswith a 2 year grace period on principal andinterest, b) Second NRs. 5,000: 10% interestfor 8 years with a 2 year grace period onprincipal only and c) Above NRs. 10,000:15% interest for 8 years with a 2 year graceperiod on principal only (Robert MerrillPadco, Inc., 1990). To give loan recipientsthe opportunity to make adequate choicesabout disaster-resistant construction, theywere required to walk through demonstrationhouses built near the lending banks. Themodels emphasized simple, cost-effective,earthquake-resistant features such as bondingat the corners, securing gable walls, andproviding lintels over openings and secureroof structures. In district headquarters andurban areas, it was mandatory to incorporatesuch features (Kreimer, A. & Preece, M.,2002). Disbursement of loans was beingdone in two instalments, which in themajority of cases were equal. First instalment

| 77


Ch

ap

ter

3

was based on field verification by thePanchayat Chairman and Ward Chairmanor member. To ensure proper use of theloan and to motivate builders to adoptearthquake resistance measures, technicalverification by the Project’s District Engineeror Overseer was a requirement for thesecond instalment. (Robert Merrill Padco,Inc., 1990)

The housing loan programme was completedwithin two years, i.e., on the end of FiscalYear 2047/048 (1991). As only those whowere listed in the Relief booklet were eligiblefor the loan, all the affected families couldnot be covered by the relief operation.Concerns were raised by various districtcommittees on this shortcoming. In orderto accommodate those who were inadvertently left out by the relief team, thecentral committee decided to grant authorityto each district committee to select additionalfamilies to the limit of 7% of the originalnumber of listed families in the district.Thus, in total about 70,000 families wereexpected to benefit from the loanprogramme based on the information, about78% of the total families obtained eitherthe first or both installments. About 54%of these receiving first installments hadobtained second installments as well. 51,778households were served out of this amount.5,369 homes were built under the supervisionof the project technician and which havesome measures of earthquake resistantfeatures (The World Bank, 1997). Thenumber of grants allocated for latrineconstruction and smokeless stoves was lessthan one-quarter of the appraisal estimateof 55,000 households mainly because of theinsufficient effort to raise public awarenessof the value of such facilities. (The WorldBank, 1997)

A survey of 1% of loan beneficiaries (500households) carried out in 1993 showed that97% of them used the loan to rebuild their

homes. 84% built entirely new housesbecause of the extent of damage to theiroriginal homes. Only a small minority werereported having received adequateguidance/training from the Project Unit inconstruction techniques, although themajority incorporated some strengtheningfeatures to increase earthquake resistance.(The World Bank, 1997)

In 1992, GoN decided to convert housingreconstruction loans of NRs. 5,000 intogrants, and waive repayment of the firstNRs. 5,000 of those with loans up to NRs.10,000. Low income borrowers accountedfor 23551 loans with a total waived value ofNRs. 15,368,848. Those whose loansexceeded NRs. 10,000 did not get any suchconcession. In the budget of Fiscal Year2052/53 (1995/96) NRs 10,000,000 was setaside for the purpose of waiving the loanamount of NRs 5,000 for the loanees whohave received the loans not more than NRs1 0,000 (The World Bank, 1997). Due tothis waiver, loanee of more than NRs 10,000also expected the same. Those who werenot granted any relief felt that they havebeen unfairly treated and should have atleast benefited from the waiver on their firstNRs. 5,000 of borrowings. The commercialbanks continued to hold these non-performing assets while being theoreticallyliable for the corresponding repayments toGoN, the borrowers were unable to sell theassets they used as collateral at the time ofborrowing. Therefore, only few loaneesrepaid the loan and hence the repayment ofthe outstanding loans was extremely poor.

EAARRP also established a separate SchoolRehabilitation Unit (SRU) and recruitedabout 500 skilled masons/carpenters tosupplement EAARRP field staff ofengineers and overseers. Designs for typicalschool buildings were being prepared by thearchitectural section of the EAARRPimplementation unit. The community

78 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

participation tradition was maintained in theproposed project. Construction wasundertaken on the basis of agreements withthe respective Village Panchayats or SchoolReconstruction Committees. It completedthe construction of 15578 classrooms by1996.

The project was completed on schedule onJune 30, 1996. In total US$ 23.4 million weredisbursed by IDA to GoN. Despite somedrawbacks, the outcome of the EarthquakeEmergency Housing ReconstructionComponent was judged to be satisfactoryfrom the government side because about300,000 people benefited from loans toreconstruct their homes. The funds weredisbursed rapidly and there were few casesof misuse of loans. The efforts, dedicationand achievements of the project staff inassisting the affected families in rebuildingtheir homes by providing financial andtechnical support and make them adoptimproved or ear thquake restraintconstruction technique to safeguard buildingagainst future earthquakes was recognizedby UNCHS/Habitat which awarded theProject its Scroll of Honor in 1993.

Lessons learned

Every disaster is an opportunity to learnsomething. This earthquake showed that thecurrent building construction practice wasnot strong enough to resist even moderateearthquakes. Consequently, it drew theattention of the government for the needof changes and improvement in currentbuilding construction practices in Nepalwhich led to the formation of NationalBuilding Code.

Regarding housing loan, experts think thatit was a mistake to only partly convertemergency relief from loans into grantsbecause of the precedent that it had set. Itwould have been simpler and better to haveoffered modest grants to all genuine victims

right from the start, with top-up loansavailable for those requiring larger sums forhouse reconstruction (The World Bank,1997). Drawing on the foregoing, some ofthe significant lessons learned from thehousing loan programme which could beused in a nationwide housing loanprogramme are as follows:a. Affordability - Due to the emergency

nature of the project, no affordabilitycriteria were taken into account for loaneligibility. The recipients had to be onthe original relief list and had to becitizens of and live in Nepal. Because ofthis, the affordability criterion was nottaken into consideration while issuingthe loan. Any future housing loanprograms would have to be based strictlyon the ability and willingness ofborrowers to repay the loan.

b. Subsidy - The programme wassubstantially subsidized in order to reachthe rural poor. If an expanded programwas to be financially viable, any subsidieswould have to be applied judiciously,quantified and placed on the budget.

c. Repayment Schedule – Banks did nottreat the housing loan as commercialloans. There were no repaymentschedules calculated. All the banks andthe people knew that the loan had to berepaid within eight years. None of thebanks calculated the effective interestrates for each type of loan. Moreover,records were not summarized by typeand size of loan. Therefore, knowledgeof amounts and dates for the repaymentof the loan as well as the grace periodof principal and the due date of interestare mandatory to the bank branches andloanee for any loan programme to beself sustaining. Corrective action mustalso be taken in the loan programme toencourage the habit of repayment,especially of interest during the graceperiod on district centers and urban loans.

| 79


Ch

ap

ter

3

d. Loan Recovery – There was politicalpressure from local Panchayat politiciansto certify second installments and/or‘chulo/ latrine’ grants which did notallow the technicians to work on theirown. Moreover, they encouraged people

not to pay the loan. So, it can be saidthat loan recovery was not enforced orwas highly politicized. If loan recoverywould be not enforced or wouldpoliticize, it will set precedence for anyfuture loan programme.

Box 3.1: Post 1988 DiaryImportant Dates

August 20, 1988

August 24, 1988

September 22, 1988

April 7, 1989

1989

1990-92

July 1991

1992

March 1995

1996

February 27, 1996

June 30, 1996

Event

Earthquake of 6.5 Richter scale hit Nepal, the epicenter being Udaypur

GoN requested for international relief assistance

Comprehensive program of Recovery and Reconstruction launched-EAARRPstarted

Agreement between GoN and IDA for Municipal Development and HousingReconstruction Project

Credit granted for Earthquake School Rehabilitation Program

Political change, dissolution of Nagar Panchayats and the appointment ofinterim municipality boards prior to elections in mid- 1992

Housing Loan Program completed

GoN decided to convert housing reconstruction loans of NRs. 5,000 into grants,and waive repayment of the first NRs. 5,000 of those with loans up to NRs.10,000

A large part of the credit SDR 5.51 million was cancelled by IDA in March 1995due to

NRs 10,000,000 was set aside by GoN for the purpose of waiving the loanamount of NRs 5,000 for the loanees who have received the loans not morethan NRs 1 0,000

Schools Rehabilitated Unit of EAARRP completed the construction of 15578classrooms

Earthquake School Rehabilitation Program completed Earthquake AffectedAreas Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project (EAARRP) completed

80 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

floods triggered by this torrential rain. Nearly8,000 families of 17 VDCs, namely, Tistung,Bajrabarahi, Palung, Daman, Agra, Gogane,Namtar, Raksirang, Khairang, Kankad,Bharta, Surikhet, Kalikatar, Bhimphedi,Markhu, and Chitlang in Makawanpurdistrict, and 3,000 families from Naubise,Thakre, Tasarpu, Pida, Baireni, and GajuriVDCs in Dhading district, were affected bythis rainfall.

Another very high intensity precipitationevent occurred in the Churia and in thelower part of the Mahabharat Range on July20, 1993, one day after the heavyprecipitation in the Daman-Palung area. Thisarea of high precipitation fell in the easternpart of Makawanpur District (Phaperbari-Raigaun), in the southern part of Kavredistrict (Milche-Saldhara), and in the westernpart of Sindhuli district (Hariharpur-MarinKhola). The total precipitation recorded inthe Hariharpur area within 24 hours wasmore than 500 mm. High intensityprecipitations was concentrated in about

500-800 sq. km with amaximum east-west length of60 km and a north south widthof 25 km.Flooding/landslide disaster of1993 is a periodic extremeevent, and it is not so unlikelyor uncommon. Such eventshave occurred in the past. Itis estimated that such hugedestruction was caused by a78-year precipitation event(Dhital et al. 1993).

Direct Loss and DamageHuman Lives

Nearly 160 persons from theseareas died. VDCs’ located fardown in the Rapti Valley were

Figure 3.6: Area affected by landslides and flood disastersduring high intensity rainfall of July 19 -20, 1993Source: Dhital et al. 1993

Event ScenarioUnprecedented high intensity precipitation(cloud burst) occurred in the upper part ofthe Mahabharat Range of Makawanpur andDhading districts, covering three majorwaters sheds- Bagmati in the east, Trishuliin the north, and Rapti in the south - onJuly 19, 1993.

The volume of precipitation within 24 hours,recorded within the area, ranged from 362mm at Nibuwatar in the southern part ofthe Mahabharat Range to 320 mm at theKulekhani dam site, 337 mm at Markhu(1530 m), 373 mm at Daman (2,364 m), anda maximum of 539.5 mm at Tistung (1,940m). Such high intensity rainfall occurredover about 530 sq. km. with a maximumeast-west length of 40 km and maximumnorth-south width of 20 km (Figure 3.6).

Almost all the VDCs located in theMahabharat Range and its adjoining areasof Makawanpur and Dhading districts wereaffected by landslides, debris flows and

The 1993 Flood of South-Central Nepal

| 81


Ch

ap

ter

3

also affected by the flood generated by therain. Five thousand families in seven VDCs,namely, Bhandara, Piple, Kathar, Kumroj,Bachhauli, Padampur, and Khaireni ofChitwan district (about 40-60 kmdownstream from the area of high intensityrain) were also affected, and 22 persons wereswept away. Similarly, 1,600 families fromfive VDCs, namely, Manohara, Handikhola,Basamadi, Bhaise, and Nibuwatar inMakawanpur district, were affected, and 33persons were swept away by the floods onthe Rapti River.

By the second rain further 1,600 families inKavre District, 11,000 families in SindhuliDistrict, and 4,000 families in MakawanpurDistrict were affected. Similarly, about 35,000families in Rautahat and Sarlahi districts inthe downstream areas (20-60 km south) wereaffected and a total of 760 persons wereswept away by the flood.

The July 1993 flood/landslide disaster wasthe second very big natural disasters thatNepal faced after only five years of the 1988eastern Nepal earthquake. During this flooddisaster five hundred thousand people wereaffected and about 1500 people died.

Roads• Mass movements on Highways and

Adjacent RegionsThe floods and heavy rain caused severedamage to the roads (Dhital et al. 1993).The damage was confined to the gullies,steep soil slopes, and slopes with highlyweathered rock. Gully erosion and alluvialfans either destroyed or blocked the roadin several places. The road very close tothe river channel also suffered from bankscouring, whereas, in several places, smalldebris fan debouched on the road.

• Damage to the Tribhuvan Highway andAdjacent AreaThere were more than 2,000 landslides(with major landslides in more than 200places) ranging in size from tens ofsquare metres to thousands of squaremetres.There were about 20 places with severewashouts. Areas where heavy damagesoccurred were Naubise (Km 26), AroundJhapre (Km 49- Km 53), betweenSikharkot and Daman (Km 71 – Km76), between Aghor and Mahabhir (Km89-98), around Bhainse Dobhan, and atBulbule (Km 122-123). More than 100

Sn.123456

InfrastructureKoshi barrageRiver embankmentRing damIrrigation damCheck damHydropower dam

LocationSaptari, SunsariDhanusaRautahat

Rautahat, Sarlahi

Rapti, Chitwan

Syangja

DescriptionNearly every year, thousands are affected1998: 200 houses, 4,500 families affected1978: 4 casualties, 850 houses damaged, 4,500families affected1993: 793 casualties, 9500 houses, 14,500livestock,31,500 families affected1990: 26 casualties, 880 houses damaged;1993: 24 casualties, 2,206 houses damaged, 5,880livestock, 5293 affected1990: 5 casualties; opening gate at Andhikholadam

Table 3.1: Losses due to infrastructure damage/failure

82 |

Source: Khanal 1996, Chhetri and Bhattarai 2001

Ch

ap

ter 3

metres of retaining walls and 23 culvertswere damaged. The bridge at Mahabhir,Bhaninse, and Trikhandi were completelywashed out and the bridge over theSopyang Khola and the Sankhamul kholawere partially damaged (Dhital et al.1993).

• Damage to the Prithvi Highway and itsSurroundingsConsiderable damage to the PrithiviHighway was incurred by floods, debrisflows, and landslides. According to thedata provided by the Department ofRoads, the cost of the damage along thePrithivi Highway is estimated to be about572 million NRs. The Malekhu KholaBridge with a span of 44 m was washedaway. Similarly, the Belkhu Khola Bridge,with a span of 66 m, and the Agra KholaBridge, with a span of 88 m weredestroyed (Dhital et al. 1993). The PrithviHighway was either damaged severely bythe Trisuli River or damaged by landslidesin more than 50 places. In those areas,the retaining walls were also damagedconsiderably.In several areas, the highway is very closeto the river. In such areas, the riverscoured the road and deposited fromone to three metres of sand and gravel.Several suspension bridges were alsoeither washed away or severely damagedduring the same event. On the otherhand, the flood, and rock-and soil slidesdamaged the road and adjacent slope atNaubise, Galchi, around Mahadev Besi,Belkhu, Gajuri, Malekhu, Benighat, BisalTar, and Jogimara. During the same event,

the Blue Heaven Restaurant, situated on theleft bank of the Trisuli River, about 500m west of Malekhu, was washed awaycompletely.

Damage to the Kulekhani Reservoir Area

Huge amount of sediment was brought intothe Kulekhani Reservoir by this event. Thesurvey carried out by the Department ofSoil Conservation (DSC 1994), in March1993 and 31 December 1993, in theKulekhani Reservoir indicated that thesediment deposited during the 1993monsoon was about 771 hectare-metres.During the period, the gross capacity of thereservoir was reduced by 10.19 million cubicmetres of its capacity at construction, ofwhich 7.71 million cubic metres of sedimentwere due to the 1993 floods. The Kunchal-Kulekhani Road, the Kulekhani Penstockpipe, the portal of the Kulekhani I tailracetunnel, and the intake of the Kulekhnai IIwere also severely damaged. The damage toKulekhani Penstock pipe alone amountedto about 200 million NRs (Dhital et al. 1993).

Damage to Bagmati Barrage

The Bagmati Barrage at Karmaiya in SarlahiDistrict was severely damaged by the floodand losses were estimated at more than 150million NRs (Upreti and Dhital 1996).

The Debris Flow at Phedigaun

Phedigaun located in the Palung Khola inCentral Nepal was most severely affectedby the July 1993 disaster in which 62 peoplewere killed and 52 houses were destroyed(Dhital et al. 1993). About 2 squarekilometres of the cultivated land and thevillage were washed away during the nightof 19th July, 1993.

| 83

Table 3.2: Infrastructure Damage in July 1993 in Nepal

Roads (km) Bridges (num) Dams (num) FMIS (num) Public Buildings (num)

367 213 64 620 452

FMIS: Farmer-managed Irrigation SystemSource: Khanal 1996


Ch

ap

ter

3

Other Infrastructures

Almost all the bridges located over the riversoriginating from the Mahabharat Range (areaof high intensity rainfall) were swept awayby the floods.

Bagmati barrage, located about 20 kmdownstream from the area of high intensity

precipitation was badly damaged andnumerous irrigation, transportation systems,and other infrastructure were also destroyed.AgricultureAbout 60,000 ha of land got damaged (Table3.3).

Table 3.3: Estimated loss of lives and property from landslides and floods of 19-22 July 1993

Sn. Loss of Lives & Property Quantity/Unit

1 Dead 1,336 persons

2 Missing 201 persons

3 Injured 110 persons

4 Families affected 85,451 families

5 Houses destroyed 18,322 no

6 Houses damaged 20,721 no

7 Public buildings lost 452 no

8 Land loss 57,013 ha

9 Livestock loss 25,628 no

10 Roads destroyed 366 km

11 Number of bridges destroyed 213 no

12 Dam destroyed 34 no

13 Number of Irrigation Channels destroyed 620 no

14 Total Estimated Loss of Property NRs 4,901 million

The south-central part of Nepal experiencedunprecedented floods, landslides and debris flowsfollowing an incessant rainfall lasting 19-21 July1993. Maximum rainfall recorded was 540 mm ina day with the night time rainfall of 65 mm/hour.The disaster was followed by another event offloods and landslides on the 8-9 August 1993. Thetotal effect of the two events was 1,460 peopledead or missing, 73,606 families seriously affected,39,043 houses destroyed fully or partially, about43,330 ha of cultivated land washed away orcovered with debris, 367 km of roads damaged,213 bridges, including six concrete bridges on

national highways, 38 large to small irrigationschemes, 452 school blocks hospital andgovernment offices etc. were destroyed withinthe couple of days. Vital supplies to the capitalcity, Kathmandu was virtually cut off for morethan a month because of the road breaches anddamage to the bridges. Damage to the Kulekhanihydropower system, consisting of two powerplants and providing 40% of the national powerproduction resulted in heavy load shedding whichaffected not only the normal life of the populationbut also adversely affected the whole of thenational economy (UNDP, 1997)

Box 3.2: July 1993 Floods and Landslides of South Central Nepal

84 |

Source: Chhetri and Bhattarai 2001

Ch

ap

ter 3

District

Makwanpur

Sarlahi

Rautahat

Sindhuli

Kavrepalanchok

Dhading

Chitwan

Total

FamilyAffected

14748

16812

14644

16163

3318

1113

5293

72091

PeopleAffected

84196

91110

89146

83441

18915

6358

34943

408109

No. ofDeaths

247

687

111

53 2

24

24

24

1170

HouseCollapsed

3010

16708

6411

718

885

827

2206

32765

LandWashed(ha)

4112

379

1366

5918

1244

1066

741

14826

LandAffected(ha)

NA

16681

6748

1418

NA

NA

2321

27168

Livestocklost

1872

11310

3211

2045

114

353

5880

24785 -

Infrastructuredamage/collapsed

KulekhaniHydro powerplant/ roads,Schools/ houses

BagmatiBarrage/ roadsSchools/ houses

Schools andhouses, roads

Same as aboveplus bridgesand roads

Same as above

Same as above

Same as above and road

Table 3.4: Damage due to Flood and Landslide in July 1993

Source: Annual Disaster review, 1993, DPTC.

Economic Loss

Estimates place the losses from this singleevent at about 5 billion NRs. (Chhetri andBhattarai 2001).

According to the data available from theDepartment of Roads, the damage to PrithviHighway due to landslides and debris flowsof 1993 disaster amounted to a total of NRs.572 million (Dhital et. al. 1993).

Indirect Impact

Due to the 1993 f lood/landslide,Kathmandu, the capital city, was cut offfrom rest of the country for 28 days due tothe disruption of Prithvi Highway andNarayanghat- Mugling road section.

Secondary Effects

The next largest loss due to disaster was16.17% in 1993 which again was the 1993landslide and flood disaster year (CBS

Statistical Yearbook 2006 and EconomicSurvey, the Ministry of Finance, 1995, 2006).

Lessons learned

The main lessons lerned as compiled byA. Dixit (1996) are:• Preparedness and Early Warning

The extreme weather event was suddenand any effective warning could not beissued. Moreover, there was nopreparedness at any level. The lack ofcommunication was very severely felt asdifferent rumors added to the confusion.The necessity of installing floodwarningsystem along the main rivers, especiallyat such large infrastructure as theKulekhani dam; as well as establishmentof proper communication systembetween two infrastructures e.g.Kulekhani Dam and the Barrage of theBagmati Irrigation Project locateddownstream in the same catchment, was

| 85


Ch

ap

ter

3

felt acutely, notably because the initialrumour suggested the sudden release ofwater from the Kulekhani Dam for itssafety was the main cause of the floodwhich reached the Terai during the nighttime. The government has initiated someaction in this line.

• Rescue and ReliefResponse was again immediate from allquarters. The Central Natural DisasterRelief Committee became active and thegovernment launched a massive reliefand rescue operation, mobilizing thearmy, the police and the non-governmentorganizations such as the Nepal RedCross for rescue and relief. Localcommunities were also involved forproviding assistance to the governmentefforts. The Natural Calamity (Relief)Act was activated for the declaration ofdisaster area. A Regional Disaster ReliefCentre was established in Hetauda forproviding the necessary co-ordination inrelief activities. The Royal Nepal Armyflew surveillance missions over theaffected areas for initial damageassessment. This helped verification ofthe conflicting information on thedamages. Subsequently, the governmentfielded various technical teams as forhealth, shelter, water and sanitation toprovide a more detailed assessment ofdamage.The government made an internationalappeal for support and the UN ResidentCoordinator was requested to assist inthe co-ordination of the internationalcommunity's disaster-relief efforts. Reliefmaterials poured in from variouscountries and international organizations.Available institutional resources weremobilized to manage the distribution ofthe relief materials to the affected.The response to the flood disaster wasmuch better managed than during anyof the previous disasters in Nepal.Continuous building up of the

institutional capacity of the SpecialDisaster Unit, the experience gained fromthe 1988 Udaypur Earthquake, and avery effective role played by the UN-DMT in providing co-ordination as wellas technical support, the continualinstitutional capacity building of theNepal Red Cross and its limited but veryeffective preparedness in terms ofconstruction of ware houses and storageof food /relief materials etc. were thecontributing factors. Similarly, the Armyand the Police could play increasinglybetter role. The Government was ableto develop strategies for an effectivemanagement of the disaster-reliefoperations which consisted in monitoringof the disaster-relief operations by teamsincluding representat ives frominternational communities, in invitingthe international personnel to theGovernment team managing the DisasterRelief Unit in the Ministry of Home;and sending a special team from thecentre to verify damage statistics and totake necessary actions to improve thedisaster response efforts. Representativesof different political parties were involvedin the disaster-relief operations. Localactivists were also involved in a greaterway.Transparency in disaster-relief operationswas thus maintained than any timepreviously. However, the need tostrengthen the national capability in termsof preparedness and co-ordination wasvery acutely realized. This aspect stilldemands greater attention given the factthat the government is much constrainedfinancially and foreign assistance willcontinue to play much role in futuredisaster response. For instance, it becamequite evident that the limited logisticalcapability of the Government needed tobe strengthened and an effective co-ordination mechanism should bedeveloped for ensuring a smoothmanagement of the relief supplies

86 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

coming to the country from internationaldonors. Similarly, a system of disasterassessment needs to be developed andstrongly implemented not only fordeveloping a correct damage scenario,but also or an effective implementationof the disaster response works.Given the Government's request for helpto co-ordinate the internationalcommunity's disaster-relief efforts, theUN Disaster Management Team (UN-DMT) has been actively involved inworking with the Government to developplans for reacting to future disastersituations including providing assistancein the co-ordination of the disaster reliefefforts. A co-ordination mechanismconcerning logistical management hasbeen developed jointly by the UN-DMTand the Government which would beinitiated should a disaster take place.Working Groups on Health and Foodhave been formed which includerepresentatives from the Governmentand the international community basedin Nepal. Manuals have been preparedfor Logistics, Health and Food aspect inorder to ensure greater effectiveness ofdisaster response works. All these wereachieved and the manuals are preparedbased on the experiences gained duringthe 1993 Floods.

• Rehabilitation and ReconstructionThe Government constituted a CentralD i s a s t e r Re h a b i l i t a t i o n a n dReconstruction Coordinating Committeewhich was assigned with the task ofpreparing a damage assessment reportupon which a rehabilitation andreconstruction program was drawn. TheNational Planning Commission (NPC)was given responsibility for managingthe reconstruction and rehabilitationphase.Provision of financial assistance to theaffected population for reconstruction,initiation of low-cost housing, restoration

of the damaged infrastructures includingthe hydropower system and the bridgesetc. were carried out with the involvementof the line agencies of the Governmentand with support from internationaldonor/funding agencies.One of the examples of rehabilitatingthe flood affected people was theconstruction of 1800 dwelling units inSukhiya Pokhari of Sarlahi, Mangalpurand Santapur of Rautahat District andMadanpokhara of Makwanpur District.These 1800 housing units wereconstructed with the financial assistancefrom Tzu Chi Foundation a BuddhistCharity organization based in Taiwanand were provided free of cost to thebeneficiaries along with a conditionalownership title restricting them to sellthe property before 25 years ofoccupation. A brief description of theproject is presented in the followingpages.

Rehabilitation of flood victims of 1993in Sarlahi, Rautahat and MakwanpurDistricts

Introduction

National and international institutionsworking in the affected areas offered variousoptions to rehabilitating the flood victims.One such program was executed by Tzu ChiFoundation, a Buddhist charity organizationbased in Taiwan. One basic housing unitwith two rooms a small kitchen and adetached toilet was provided to 1800 familiesin four different locations. 60 Housing unitsaccommodating 10 household families ineach unit was constructed in Sukhiya Pokhariof Sarlahi district. 150 duplex blocks for300 families in Mangalpur and 250 duplexunits for another 500 families in Santapurwere constructed in Rautahat District.Similarly anther 200 duplex units for 400families were constructed in Madanpokharaof Makwanpur District.

| 87


Ch

ap

ter

3

Figure 3.8: StoneMasonry inFoundation

Building Plan

The basic plan of the housing unit had asmall verandah, two moderately sized roomsand a small kitchen. There was a small toiletfor each housing unit detached to the mainbuilding. Each housing unit also had a smallkitchen garden. The housing units wereprovided with wide access roads andapproach to the main road. The Figure 3.7drawing shows the dimensions of a typicalduplex unit used to house the flood victims.

Nepal government provided the land forthe housing program, Tzu Chi foundationprovided the construction cost. The housingproject was completed within 18 months byemploying two A Class contractors. Thusthis rehabilitation program for the victimsalso became the largest housing programever executed in Nepal in a very short time.

Construction TechnologyThe buildings were constructed with boulderstone masonry in mud mortar in thefoundation. Brick masonry in cement sandmortar was used in the superstructure.Precast RCC lintels were used over the doors

Figure 3.7: Floor plan of a typicalduplex unit providing basic housingfor two families in Mangalpur

Figure 3.10: Brickbuilding underconstruction

Figure 3.9: Weaknessin buildingconstruction

and windows. Molded steel frames wereused for the doors and windows. The doorshad paneled shutters and the window glassshutters. The colored CGI roofs weresupported on steel tubular rafters andbattens. The (figure 3.8 - 3.13) photographswere taken in Mangapur of Rautahat Districtwhile they were under construction.

88 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

Figure 3.11: Pre CastRCC lintel abovethe opening

Figure 3.12: Improperbonding of masonryunits

19 housing units after the flood victimsoccupied the buildings were blown in SukhiyaPokhari of Sarlahi District by a moderateintensity of wind. Sukhiya Pokhari had blocksof row housing with 10 units in a block.The improper breath to length ratio mighthave been a major reason for this damageapart from the proper anchorage of theroofing system to the wall. The coloniesseemed to be safe from flood as all the foursettlements are located in areas less proneto frequent flooding. Very limited use oftimber and use of other non combustibleconstruction materials makes them safe fromfire, also.

Three settlements in Sukhiya Pokhari,Mangalpur and Santapur observe very hightemperature in summer and extremely coldtemperature in the winter. Instances of fewdeaths every year by hot wave in the summerand cold wave in the winter are very commonin these areas. The use of CGI roofing sheetwithout any provision for the insulationmade the dwelling unit uncomfortable.Almost all the household have constructedadditional shades with the materials thatthey can afford. The shades were mostly

Figure 3.13: Detachedtoilet blocks for thehouses

| 89

Construction QualityThe quality of construction of the buildingsas observed during construction inMangalpur of Rautahat District was not tothe standards. The reason behind may bethat the construction had to be completedin a short time. The other obvious reasonmay be lack of proper supervision andmonitoring. The quality might have beenbetter if the potential beneficiaries wereemployed in the construction work.

Vulnerability to disasters other thanfloodDespite the low quality of construction dueto many reasons the buildings may be strongenough to bear the vertical load. In a waythis has been proved because they are erectsince the completion in 1995 and have stoodfor the last 17 years. But they are highlyvulnerable to horizontal loads like high speedwind and earthquakes. The housing unitsclearly lack basic seismic resistant featureslike vertical reinforcement and horizontalbands. The CGI sheet roofing of three ofthe housing units during construction and


Ch

ap

ter

3

constructed with wattle and daub wall andthatch roof. These shades are cool in summerand warm in winter. The addition had comeup not only because of the comfort but alsobecause of the space requirement. Whatevermay be the reason behind this but thesettlements are now vulnerable in case offire.

Housing delivery systemThis project basically had two majorobjectives. One of them was to construct1800 housing units in the given time andthe other was to select and settle the floodvictims in the new settlement. There wereno major problems reported in fulfilling thefirst one but meeting the second objectivefaced major challenges.

The affected population raised a questionon the selection of the beneficiaries. It wasknown that the affected population was notsatisfied with the selection process. Theyopined that there was larger mass left whowere more severely affected than those whowere allotted the housing units. They wantedthe selection criterion to be more specificand transparent. There were heavy protestduring the allocation and it was delayedmonths keeping the victims in temporaryshelters even after the buildings were readyto occupy.

Water supply and sanitationThe other issue was of drinking water. Thesettlement in Mangalpur neither had anexisting drinking water supply scheme northe implementers made a new scheme. Thewater required for construction was alsotransported from Bagmati river around 2kilometers from the site. The inhabitantswere compelled to bring the water theyrequired from either the Bagmati river 2kilometers away or the irrigation canal nearbyfor years after they were settled. This madethem very difficult to use the toilet blocks.Even after a year of occupying the houses

the toilets were used either as a fire woodstore or a goat shed.

EmploymentThe affected population who finally settledin the newly constructed buildings spreadacross the bank of river Bagmati fromNunthar to the border of India whichstretches across more than 40 kilometers.This created the problem of employmentfor daily hand to mouth maintenance. It wasnot possible for the bread earners to travelto and from the original employment locationnor there were any opportunity of alternativeemployment within the walking distancefrom the new settlement. This forced thefamily members to break into two livingareas. The bread earners of the family startedliving in temporary huts in their originallocation and the new house was only forold people and children s who could notwork. Even the elderly and the childrencould have gone to their original locationbut this was stopped by the compulsion ofthe government which did not allow themto sell the new property within 15 yearsfrom the date the ownership was transferred.All the 1800 housing units were occupiedin the initial months but as time passed manyof them left their houses locked and startedsettling in the place where they could getwork to earn their bread. It was said thatthey started selling their property unofficially.It is very much likely that almost 50% ofthose allotted the buildings might not beliving in the house any more.

Conclusions• The project implemented with the

financial assistance of Tzu ChiFoundation has been the first largesthousing project ever included in Nepaltill 1995 providing permanent shelter tothe people affected from disaster, thoughthe number of families rehabilitated isvery small in comparison to the affectedmass.

90 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

• Providing the housing units free of costand without any participation in theconstruction and housing delivery systemlead to decreased sense of ownership bythe occupants.

• Addition of shades constructed withwattle and daub walls and thatch roofhas considerably decreased the outlookof the settlement and highly increasedthe vulnerability to fire disasters.

• Some of the beneficiaries have settledelsewhere either leaving the houses lockedor informally sold the property as theywere not allowed to formally sell it toothers within 25 years of the date ofawarding the owner title.

• Lack of employment opportunity withinthe nearby locat ion except inMadanpokhara of Makwanpur districtbecame the main reason for the victimsto settle elsewhere.

Lessons for the futureThe lesson from this project is to establishcommunity based disaster risk managementcommittees and capacitate them toimplement disaster preparedness andresponse at the local level. Apart from thatthe following lessons can be drawn fromthe experience of this rehabilitation for thedisaster affected people;

• It is much better to rehabilitate thevictims in the vicinity of their originalliving areas as far as possible. This processmay take more time but it will besustainable and the beneficiaries will notfeel as stranger in her / his own residence.

• The beneficiaries must be considered asone of the major stakeholders insteadof treating them as “poor helplessvictims” and try to spoon feed them.These people can very well participatein the selection process of thebeneficiaries with an agreed selectioncriterion. Further they can work in theconstruction of the buildings being builtfor them at least as unskilled laborers.Training them on the buildingconstruction process would facilitatethem to construct their own buildingsand at the same time acquire additionalskill for livelihood. In this case suchrehabilitation endeavor should beconsidered as a process and not anobjective oriented project.

• Such project could have contributed toincome generation activity in a great dealif local materials like “khapda” thetraditional clay tiles instead of CGI sheetswere used for roofing. Various incomegenerating programs could have beencoupled with the rehabilitation programin association with the NGOs/ INGOsworking in the area.

District Family affected Houses Collapsed Families rehabilitated by Tzu Chi Foundation

Makwanpur 14748 3010 400

Sarlahi 16812 16708 600

Rautahat 14644 6411 800

Total 46,204 26,129 1,800

Table 3.5 : Families affected and the number of housing constructed by Tzu Chi Foundation

| 91


Ch

ap

ter

3

Event ScenarioNepal had a devastating flood in 2008 ineastern region due to heavy monsoon rainsin Koshi River Basin, one of the largest riverbasin among the major three river systemsin the country. On 18 August, the KoshiRiver breached an embankment through aneastern retaining wall damaging two damspurs, roughly 10 Km north of the EastWest Highway, affecting 8 VDCs - Kusaha,Laukahi, Ghuski, Sreepur, Haripur,Narshimha, Madhuban and Basantapur ofSunsari and Saptari Districts. Additionalflooding on 29 August affected further 4VDCs.

Direct Loss and DamageHuman Casualties

The data on loss and damage differ withdifferent sources. According to UNESCOfield survey a total of 6183 households, 40%of the households in these 12 VDCs wereaffected. Another estimate shows a totalnumber of 7306 households affected in theVDCs of Shreepur, Haripur and PaschimKusaha. Source of CDO Office, Sunsari,shows a total of 7584 displaced families.Almost all the households in Haripur andShreepur were affected. The percentage ofaffected households decreases with theincrease in the distance from the breach site.

Table 3.6 presents the total number ofpopulation and households.

There was only one fatality reported fromthe flooding. However, the number of deathsreached 55, mostly in the shelter camps(CDO Office, Sunsari). UNESCO fieldsurvey reported total of 40 deaths, of which18 were female and 6 were children. Manyof them had died due to diarrhea. The totalnumber of injured people was 2350 of which898 were female and 816 were children.

Number of households andpopulation figures for the

affected VDCs

Total number ofhouseholds

Total number ofpopulation

Number ofhousehold affected

% of affectedhousehold

18238 109817 6183 33.9

Table 3.6: Number of households and population figures for the affected VDCs

Table 3.7: Number of deaths and injuries

Number of deathsand injuries

Death InjuryMale Female Children Total Male Female Children Total

16 18 6 40 636 898 816 2350

The Koshi Flood 2008

92 |

Figure 3.14: Koshi Flood MapSource: UNOCHA, 2008

Source: UNESCO, 2009

Ch

ap

ter 3

Housing and Building

Many property including houses, sheds,public buildings and temples were sweptaway and destroyed. In addition to these, 8rice mills and 23 seller mills were damaged.Table 3.8 shows the damage to buildingproperty from the flooding.

Table 3.10 shows the estimated loss ofhousehold goods. Those losses wereconfined to three VDCs.

Infrastructures

The estimated loss of infrastructure such asroad, bridges and culverts is shown in Table3.11 . About 7 km of metalled road, 126 kmof graveled road, 131 km of earth road and82 km of trails were damaged. Similarly 6bridges and 67 culverts were also damagedby the flood.

The East West Highway which is thecountry’s main transport corridor remainedimpassable for three months hamperingmovement of agricultural product from theEastern Tarai to other parts of the country;as 17 km was damaged including 1 km

completely washed away at three differentpoints and about 4 km submerged in floodwater (ADB, 2008c; IASC, 2008; Pathak,2008). The Koshi flood destroyed 12 km ofMahendra Highway in different parts ofSunsari district. 13 km of culverts, irrigationchannels got flooded. Nepal Army Barrackand office of Koshi Tappu Wild Life Reservehad been inundated. (Kantipur Daily, 2065Bhadra)

Also, damage to underground optical fibre,phone lines and installations resulted intelecommunication problems in landline andmobile phone for two days (ADB. 2008;IASC, 2008; Pathak, 2008).

In regards to electricity supply, five towersof 132 KV and about 117 Km of transm-ission lines were damaged by the flood.Similarly 60 KV transmission lines was alsodamaged. Transmission lines even in thedownstream area in the far south and easternparts were damaged.

Agriculture

Land: Over 5985 Bighas of rice paddy, sugar

| 93

Table 3.8: Damage to properties

Loss of /damage toproperties

House (no) Rice MillsSheds (no) PublicBuilding Temples Seller

MillsPakki Kachchi230 3167 323 19 26 8 23

Table 3.10: Loss of household goods in number

Loss of householdgoods in number

Khat Daraj Radio TV Cycle Motor bike3288 1075 1490 225 3150 11

Table 3.11: Damage of roads and trails

Loss/damage ofroads and trails

Road (km) Bridge (no)Trail (km)Metalled Graveled

7.4 126 131 264.4 82 6 67Earth Total

Culvert (no)

Table 3.9: Extent of damage to cultivated land

Extent of damageto cultivated land

Total land area inBigha

Totally damagedland area in Bigha

Partially damagedland area in Bigha Ponds Canal

8207 3764 4443 89 73



Ch

ap

ter

3

cane, corn and jute land got destroyed bythe flood along with 89 ponds and 73 canal.Almost all the cultivated lands in the threeVDCs namely Haripur, Shreepur Japadi andPaschim Kusaha were damaged by the flood.Large parts of cultivated land were coveredby a thick layer of sand and gravel.

Another estimate of damage to land showsa much higher area of nearly 8200 Bighasdamaged by the flood, in only four VDCs.Nearly 46% of the area was totally damagedand the remaining 54% was partiallydamaged.

Crops: A huge quantity of standing cropsgot damaged and there was loss of grainstored in the houses because of the floods(Table 3.12). The standing crops were paddy,sugarcane and jute. The quantity lost reportedfrom 39800 quintal of sugarcane to 79214quintal of rice and 2170 quintal of jute.Similarly, the loss of stored grains reportedas 4940 quintal of wheat to 5427 quintal ofmaize and 635 quintal of potato.

Fruits and Vegetables: The loss of fruitsfrom the flood is shown in the Table 3.13The loss of fruits was also confined to three

VDCs, namely Haripur, Shreepur Jabadi andPaschim Kusaha.

Table 3.14 shows the estimates of vegetablesdamaged by the flood. The estimated lossis substantial. Again, Haripur, ShreepurJabadi, Paschim Kusaha and Ghuski wereaffected most.

Livestock loss: The flood also damaged anddestroyed livestock and productive assets,such as agricultural tools and machinery.Table 3.15 shows the number of livestocklost due to the flood. The loss of fish wasconsiderable even in the downstream areassuch as Kaptangunj and Sahebgunj. A totalof 55000 domestic animals were affectedand 20000 displaced.

Direct Economic Loss

UNESCO estimated the loss incurred inmonetary value and it shows that there wasa loss of about 3773.6 million rupees (Table3.16). Land value comprised nearly 64% ofthe total loss, followed by livestock, food,crops and houses. This estimate was basedon the losses in only four VDCs and didnot incorporate the loss of other household

94 |

Table 3.12: Loss of crops in 2008 Koshi flood

Loss of crops inquintal

Paddy Wheat Maize Potato Sugarcane Jute79214 4940 5427 635 398100 2170

Table 3.13: Loss of fruits in 2008 Koshi flood

Loss of fruits inquintal

Mango Jack fruit Banana Guava Litchi4620 2370 300 100 500

Table 3.14: Losses of vegetables in 2008 Koshi flood

Losses of vegetablesin quintal

Pumpkin Bottlegourd Cucumber Pointed

gourd Chilli Aborigine Okra Arum

1601.5 40219 102 31015 10000 1200 10 30

Table 3.15: Number of livestock lost in 2008 Koshi flood

Number oflivestock lost

Cow Buffalo Goat Chicken Duck Pig Fish

1000 1180 7306 22047 2000 300 303500Source: UNESCO, 2009

Ch

ap

ter 3

goods, infrastructure and services. So thetotal loss seemed to exceed this estimate.

Indirect ImpactElectricity supply: Damage of 60 KV and132 KV transmission line with 5 towerscaused disruption of electricity supply for2 to 4 weeks.

Water supply: The water supply systemwas also affected up to 4 weeks. Disastersexacerba ted prob lems of wa te rcontamination, leading to an increase inwater-borne diseases such as cholera anddiarrhea.

Telecom: The communication networkswere disturbed by flood for two days. NepalTelecom Mobile network was working butit got disturbed time and often. Mero mobileservices, a private telecom facility workedfairly good. Internet connection workedsporadically.

Market: The 2008 Koshi flood was reportedto have a significant upward impact oncommodity prices, particularly of onions,potatoes and fire-woods (IASC, 2008). Atthe same time, the price of some goodsdeclined due to supplier side problems. Theprice of perishable food items such asbananas and vegetables dropped sharply inareas east of Koshi while it increased inwestern and north eastern feeder marketsbecause of the closure of the East-WestHighway (IASC, 2008; WFP, 2008).

The flood was associated with an increasedincidence of pestilence and crop disease aswell with further adverse implications forcrop yields.

Food insecurity: Koshi flood contributedto food insecurity by massively destroyingthe crops and agricultural land.

Schools: Koshi flood disrupted theeducation of some 23,000 school studentsincluding both displaced students andstudents of the host schools where thedisplaced were sheltered (Acharya & Aryal2008). There were 61 schools and 9950students affected by this flood. Out of 61schools 17 Community schools (6885students), 13 Boarding schools (1000students), 6 Madarasa (1585 students), 25Child Development Centers (480 students)were affected. 21 schools and 1 campus ofdistrict headquarter were closed for settingof the camp. Total 20000 students wereaffected due to setting up of the camp.

Flow of Goods and Services: The flowof people and goods ceased completely fora period of 30 to 220 days. Previously morethan 3600 vehicles used to shuttle every dayon the East-West Highway. Similarly thesupply of drinking water and electricity wascompletely disrupted for up to 220 days inmany places. Industries were closed for upto 220 days (Table 3.17).

Hale of the Industries of Sunsari Morangcorridor were closed by the flood resulting

| 95

Table 3.16: Estimated monetary loss in 2008 Koshi flood

S. No Properties Loss in Rs %1 House and shed 60454080 1.62 Land 2422400375 64.23 Livestock 319247508 8.54 Crops 176641475 4.75 Food 190844448 5.1Total 3773603836 100



Ch

ap

ter

3

in the daily loss of NRs. 10 crore. It alsodisturbed the goods supply to other partsof country like Kathmandu, Butwal, Pokharaand Narayanghat.

Early Warning and Preparedness

A sort of partial Early Warning System wasestablished in Koshi Flood of 2008. Risingof water level in the river due to continuousrain was quite noticeable prior one week.The information was being aired regularlyby local radio Saptakoshi FM. When spurcutting started, people were alerted andadvised to leave the place. This was one daybefore the event and when the eventoccurred people were able to evacuatethough with limited belongings. DDRCimmediately got activated in communicatingand coordinating with GOs, I/NGOs, UNagencies for rescue and relief. No fatalityoccurred due to flooding.

Rescue and ReliefThe Government took the lead role inresponse operations through DDRCs andCDOs by coordinating between localauthorities and the line ministries.

On 4 September 2008, the Government

The macroeconomic consequences of the 2008Koshi and far-western floods

The Koshi and far-western floods resulted in anestimated NRS 2.3 billion (US$29.2 m) directdamage to assets and a further NRS 3.6m(US$44.8m) indirect damage, together equivalentto 0.6% of projected GDP for FY 2008-2009.However, the impact of the floods was fairlylocalized and, assuming relatively rapid restorationof infrastructure and reclamation of agriculturalland, it was expected that the floods would havea very limited impact on macroeconomicperformance. In consequence, the GDP growthforecast for the year was only revised down from7.0 to 6.7%, and the agricultural GDP growthforecast from 4.5 to 4.1%, following the floods.Growth in the nonagricultural sector was alsoexpected to be 0.2 percentage points lower thanpreviously forecast, due to the impact of damageto transport and communications infrastructureon manufacturing activities and trade.

The floods were expected to have a minimalimpact on prices, given their relatively limitedeffect on overall agricultural production coupledwith supply alternatives from India. Meanwhile,adverse impacts on the balance of trade, relatingto higher inflows of imports for reconstructionpurposes and to resolve supply disruptionsresulting as a consequence of damage to the East-West Highway, were expected to be offset bysustained growth in inflows of remittances andtourism earnings (Source: ADB, 2008).

96 |

Box 3.3: Secondary Effects ofKoshi Flood

S. No Name of the VDCs Traffic flow Water supply Electricity Trade Industry1 Haripur 180 200 220 150 1502 Shreepur Jabadi 180 200 220 150 2203 Paschim Kusaha 200 200 200 200 2004 Ghuski 200 0 20 30 205 Basantapur 30 0 15 30 156 Laukahi 220 7 30 30 307 Narsimha 30 15 15 30 158 Ramgunj Sinuwari 45 15 15 30 159 Devangunnj 45 15 15 30 1510 Sahevgunj 40 15 15 30 1511 Madyaharsahi 40 15 15 30 1512 Kaptangunj 40 15 15 30 15

Table 3.17: Number of days when the flow of goods and services were closed


Ch

ap

ter 3

declared a State of Emergency in 10 VDCsin Sunsari and 1 VDC in Saptari, making iteasier for CDOs to take prompt actions asneeded. At the regional level, the SaptakoshiDisaster Management Coordination Cell wasestablished to monitor and direct theDDRCs. At the central level, CNDRC,chaired by the Ministry of Home Affairs,oversaw the response effort and preparedthe return strategy plan for the Koshi flood-displaced people in December 2008.

The work of the international humanitariancommunity in both regions was beingcoordinated through a cluster systemformalized on 9 September 2008. Clusterswere established for health - WHO; nutrition- UNICEF; water, sanitation, and hygiene - UNICEF; food assistance - WFP; education- UNICEF and Save the Children; protection- OCHA with a subgroup on child protection(UNICEF); camp coordination and campmanagement - IOM; and emergency shelter- IFRC. The clusters coordinated by theUNOCHA responded to the needs of flood-affected people. The World Bank fundedtwo barges to provide temporary transportto cross the Koshi River. National and local

NGOs and NRCS played a critical role inthe immediate response in Sunsari andSaptari districts, working closely with UNagencies. The role of NRCS had largelybeen to facilitate the distribution of reliefmaterials obtained from governmentagencies and development partners. (ADB,2009)

Almost all the Humanitarian agencies senttheir staff in the affected areas to providedirect assistance like Action Aid invulnerable groups, DPNet in coordinationand information sharing with civil society,UNDP on transportation of rapidassessment teams, medical teams, medicines,search and rescue kits, emergency responseitems both food and NFI.

The Government of India, which isresponsible for maintenance of the Koshibarrage and embankment under the KoshiProject Agreement, responded by providingNRs 320 million as immediate reliefs toflood-affected people in Saptari and Sunsaridistricts.

Figure 3.15: People seeking for temporary shelterafter 2008 Koshi flood

Box 3.4: Prompt activation ofDDRC & CNDRCThe DDRC of Sunsari met on 18 August aftergetting the information of flood. The CDO andLDO also met with political parties though theywere not the member of DDRC. The DDRC sentan assessment team to assess the nature andextent of the event and informed MoHA/CNDRCrequiring assistance from the center.

The Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee(CNDRC) meeting headed by the PM PushpaKamal Dahal held on 19 August, declared Nationalemergency and directed to mobilize the entirestate machinery for the relief effort.

The Government further appealed to all people,organizations and international community togenerously extend financial and material help forcarrying out the relief and rehabilitation operationon 21 August.

| 97


Ch

ap

ter

3

Need Assessment

The DDRC constituted and deployed teamsto assess the loss of property and otherresources. NRCS carried out Damage andNeed Assessment. Oxfam, Caritas andDEPROSC Nepal completed initial rapidassessments using IASC-IRA tool. WFPassessed initial food needs and damages tofood crops. MoHP, WHO and UNFPAcarried out rapid health assessment. UNOCHA carried out initial assessment of thesituation in Saptari and other areas. Childprotection and education assessment wasdone by child related agencies.

Supply of Food and Non-food Items

Initially immediate food needs were beingmet with donations of ready to eat foodsfrom the Government, INGOs, NGOs, UNand local civic organizations. Later on WFPmade resources available for feeding up to30,000 people for two weeks. All the peoplestaying in the camps received some of theother kind of food. But the need to providethe necessary level of calorie received notmuch attention. Some displaced people livingoutside the camp did not receive the foodespecially those who had not left their housewith the fear of losing their property. Thoughthere was no shortage of food, thedistribution especially outside the camp wasproblematic. There was looting of the foodintended for distribution on 19th August inLauki. Some relief suppliers wanted todistribute the relief but were not able to doso due to the absence of a suitablemechanism of identifying the genuinedisaster victims. Later identity cards wereissued to solve the problem (DPNet, 2008).ACT International and LWF Nepal providedready-to-eat food such as beaten rice, puffedrice and noodles to 3,583 people from 552households (LWF Nepal , 2008) .

Similarly, non food items (NFI) such asblankets, tarpaulin, plastic buckets/ jugswere also distributed to the affected people.

Shelter

Locations of those displaced slowlycoalesced into four distinct categories overthe first month: those living with hostfamilies, camps established in higher areaseast of the new Koshi flow, campsestablished in Saptari district and finallycamps extending south of the embankmentbreach along a narrow strip of land betweenthe embankment and the usual flow of theKoshi (Kellett, J, 2009). A total of 328shelters were built in the Jhumka camp,followed by 245 shelters in the Lauki camp.Additional shelters were subsequently builtin other places (ADB, 2009). All thedisplaced persons received some or the otherkind of emergency shelter even though notconfirming to the Sphere requirements.Most of the shelters were created in theexisting Schools and it hampered theeducation of the students. (DPNet, 2008).Oxfam completed 4,199 shelters andsupported 890 Bamboo frames, Oxfam andNRCS further distributed heavy-duty

Box 3.5: Quick Initial Rescueand ReliefThe response of the Government in terms ofrescue operation was quick and efficient. Securityforces were deployed for rescue and to controlthe side cutting using the sand filled sack. SimilarlyKoshi Victim Society (KVS) in Saptari weremobilized for rescue and distribution of reliefmaterials. People have been rescued from roofand tree tops. More than 5,500 people wererescued using 3 Army Helicopters, 10 rafting boats,3 ordinary boats, 4 elephants from the adjacentKoshi Tappu Wild Life Reserve and nylon rope 18pieces of air filled Tube within three days.According to the Nepal Army, 2,500 people wererescued by ground on 19 August. 417 people wereairlifted from roof and tree tops by 9:30 am on20 August.

The Sunsari chapter of NRCS mobilized its localvolunteers for distribution of relief materials forhumanitarian response. The NRCS handed overthe management of its relief materials warehouseto LDO in Inaruwa for distribution on 21 August.The small local stakeholders were fast in theresponse (Baral, M., 2009).

98 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

Figure 3.16: Shelter, storm and struggle for life after 2008 Koshi flood

Tarpaulin for winterization. 29 temporaryshelters were set up surrounding or in theInaruwa Municipality and campus, schools,Madarasa in different parts of laukahi.

Medicine

Children in particular suffered frompneumonia due to the supply of a ratherthin mat. There were also few incidences ofdiarrhea and cholera along with eye disordersuch as Conjunctivitis. Nepal Red CrossSociety initiated setting up of the healthcamp for flood victims. Similarly DistrictHealth Office Sunsari, BP Koirala Instituteof health Science Dharan, Birat NursingHome, Novel Medical Collage, Nepal Army,Rotary Club provided health services. Some

Committees were formed in order to takeresponsibility for care of WASH facilities,camp cleanliness and encouraging safehygiene behaviors. A total of 12 OralRehydration Treatment (ORT) corners andHealth Information Centers were establishedwhere Community Health Volunteers(CHVs) distributed Oral RehydrationSolution (ORS) and disseminatedinformation related to public health andhygiene promotion. Altogether 2,328 peoplegot benefited from the information providedand 321 diarrhea patients were treated withORS. Likewise 1,540 education sessionswere organized by the PHP volunteers andsupervisors on different areas of hygiene

camps were opened for the distribution ofmedicines. One of them was the PragatisheelSamuha which was seen to be distributingthe necessary drugs for the flood victims incollaboration with the District Health Officein Lauki (DPNet, 2008).

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

A total of 584 Public Health Promotion

promotion. With the view to raise publicawareness, 48 street dramas were performed.World Vision International (WVI) installedhand pumps for safe drinking water at thetemporary shelters and conducted arsenictesting. It also installed 24 temporary toiletsat the shelters and some emergency toilets.UNICEF gave trainings on the use ofaquatab and provided it for 600 families.

| 99


Ch

ap

ter

3

Recovery

The majority of Koshi flood-affecteddisplaced households returned to their areaof pre-flood origin. However, the flooddisplaced households from the heavilysanded areas were with limited shelter, accessto basic facilities including drinking water,sanitation facilities, adequate shelter orlivelihood support. Therefore variouspackages were brought for the affectedpeople in recovery phase.

Food Security

Cash-for-Food: The DDRC Sunsari providedCash-for-Food for the Koshi flood affectedfamilies from Shreepur 1-9 and PaschimKusaha 3, 4. Total of 5,139 householdsreceived the Cash-for-Food, conductedduring 27 April - 10 May, 2009. DDRCprovided the Cash-for-Food with the normsof NPR 1,000 per family member tohouseholds with less than five members,families with more than five membersreceived a lump sum of NPR 5075.00.(UNOCHA, 2009)

Food for work - Development ProjectService Cener (DEPROSC-Nepal/WFPpartner NGO) implemented schemes onFood-for-Work (FfW) in the areas of 4VDCs – Paschim Kusaha, Shreepur, Haripurand Lauki. The total benefited householdswere 3,612 HHs. Most of the runningschemes included Rural Road Rehabilitationand some new road constructions,community fish ponds, Hume Pipemaintenances, culvert maintenances, checkdam construction and deep land filling.(UNOCHA, 2009)

Return Package

A total of 7,343 families applied for theGovernment Return Package and a total of2,438 families (Green zone: 1,680, Yellowzone: 758 families) from the flood affectedarea received the sum, as of 13 May 2009.(UNOCHA, 2009)

Government Compensation Package

Ministry of Home Affairs approved a totalof NRs. 1 billion 60 Crore 82 Lakhs 96Thousand 5 Hundred to compensate flooddamaged buildings, land and crops, as wellas funds for two Kattha of land for thelandless households and compensation fordeaths that occurred in camps. (UNOCHA,2009), see Table 3.18 for more details.

Health Service in Return Areas

Under the inadequate provision of healthservices, children, pregnant women andelderly were particularly vulnerable to theharsh weather conditions; Flood-affectedfamilies commonly suffered from sand inthe air (from winds), cough and fever, eyeinfections, diarrhea, skin infections(UNOCHA, 2009). Therefore health serviceswere provided in returns areas as well.

Livelihoods and Income Generation(LIG)

In Sunsari District, USAID/Nepal FloodRecovery Program (NFRP) conducted 16-

Figure 3.17: Distribution of compensation after2008 Koshi floodSource; MoHA, 2065 BS

month training program starting fromNovember 2009 and spanning in three cropcycles. A total of 1,067 participants weredivided into 192 producer groups and bylate January the programs distributed allseeds, nursery sets and integrated pestmanagement kits. Demonstration plotstotaling 270 hectares were planted for thefirst crop cycle with a variety of high value

100 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

crops such as onion, chili, cucumber, squash,pumpkin, okra, long bean and hybrid maize.It installed 10 irrigation sets for producergroups with an agreement to pay for 25%of the installation cost. (USAID Nepal,2010)

Face Board (A partner NGO of MEDEP/UNDP) formed a total of 35 entrepreneurgroups comprising vegetable farming,shuttering, rickshaw, saloon, creamseparation, brass band etc in return areasand provided skill-based trainings. Micro-Enterprise Development Program(MEDEP) provided pump set/boring pumpat 2 per group and installation support inHaripur VDC. Plan Nepal conductedboutique training for 20 participants.(UNOCHA, 2009)

Infrastructure

USAID-NFRP constructed 8 bridges andculverts in Sunsari and rehabilitated 3important sections of local roads. These

projects directly benefitted an estimated7,364 households and improved the quality,accessibility and resilience of over fivekilometers of local roads – equating to acomplete rehabilitation of 20 percent of allroads affected by the flood (approx. 25 km).(USAID Nepal, 2010)

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

UNICEF supported for decommissioningof WASH facilities from the vacated camps.Save the Children through its implementingpartner, UPCA Nepal, established WASHfacilities in schools in the returned area(water points, toilets etc) and mobilized 22Female Community Health Volunteers(FCHVs) in 3 VDCs for intensifyingawareness in sanitation and health. As theflood affected area is the arsenic zone,agencies willing to implement WASHprojects (tube wells) in return area neededto coordinate with Water Supply andSanitation Division Office (WSSDO) for

S. No Title Details Amount

1 House Types Thatch roof NRs. 50,000

Zink NRs. 100000

2 story NRs. 200000

Pakki NRs. 1 lakh per room

2 Land Red area 5 lakhs per bigaha

Damaged land by main stream 6 lakhs per bigaha

3 Crops Paddy Per man (40kg) NRs. 600

Wheat Per man 850

sugarcane Per man 230

Jute Per man 1000

4 Squatters (1422) 1 squatters 2 kattha

5 Dead family compensation 1 person 25000 (dead in camp)

1000000 (dead by flood)

6 Others Return to origin places program 50,000 per person

Land treatment 75000 per bigaha

7 Livestock livestock loan 50,000 (interest less)

Table 3.18: Details of Compensation after 2008 Koshi flood

| 101

Source: UNOCHA, 2009


Ch

ap

ter

3

arsenic tests. WSSDO distributed handpumps in the Internally Displaced Person(IDP) returned area of Haripur, Shreepurand Paschim Kusaha VDC to meet theimmediate need of drinking water.(UNOCHA, 2009)

Health and Nutrition

Women’s Rehabilitation Center (WOREC)with support from Plan Nepal providedfresh milk for infants under-two year fromvarious camps. District Health Office (DHO)and Biratnagar Eye Hospital worked toaddress the eye infection situation in returnedareas. DHO mobilized a health workersteam as mobile team in the flood affectedarea for health check up, general treatmentand follow up. Counseling in health andhygiene in affected areas was carried outregularly through a number of methodswhich included• Regular household visits by community

health volunteer (CHV)• Poster distribution• Street drama• Rally using play cards and banners• Demonstrations (hand washing and ORT

preparation/treatment)• WASH Information Centre and ORT

Corner (operational 6 hours per day)• Weekly education sessions targeted to

children in the protection “safe space”Education

The District Education Office (DEO), withsupport from District Child Welfare Board(DCWB), UNICEF, Save the Children/UPCA, WVI, and Center for CommunityDevelopment (CECOD) conducted‘Admission Campaign’ in Sunsari with specialattention to four flood affected VDCs ofHaripur, Shreepur, Paschim Kusaha andLauki during 26 April - 8 May. 3schools (BPKishan Primary School-Paschim Kusaha 4,

BP Madan Primary School-Shreepur 9 andJanata Primary School-Shreepur 5) whichwere completely damaged during floodingwere reconstructed. (UNOCHA, 2009)

Agriculture and Livestock

The Saptakoshi Flood RehabilitationAgriculture and Livestock Service Office(SFRALSO) distributed 4500 packets ofvegetable and 4200 packets of Mung seed.It conducted the Soil fertility status test afterflood testing 1,000 sample soil. It alsoconducted Livestock Health Camps andprovided the required medicines for thetreatment of livestock. Cattle feeddistribution work was done from 12 Mayby District Livestock office, Sunsari/FAOin return areas. 60 farmers groups wereformed to establish a Goat ProcurementFund. (UNOCHA, 2009)

Shelter/housing

The resettlement project funded byUNDP/UN-HABITAT, for landless familiesaffected by Koshi Flooding providedpermanent housing. Additionally, it helpedto remove the psychological burden of beingsquatters. The government provided 2 kattha(676 sq m) of land to each family. Thehouses in the planned settlement wereconstructed at low cost basis and moreresistant to natural hazards. Focus was morein use of locally available materials andtechnology. The treated bamboo and adobewas promoted, with emphasis on disasterrisk reduction through appropriate settlementplanning and housing design.

Livelihood trainings

UN-HABITAT trained to construct housesat low cost basis and more resistant to naturalhazards with focus in use of locally availablesuch treated bamboo and adobe. Differentagencies provided training on clean waterand sanitation as well.

102 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

Reconstruction and RehabilitationNepal Government Budget

On the budgetary front, the Governmentearmarked NRs2 billion for rehabilitationof the Koshi flood victims. Donations fromindividuals and private organizations werecollected through the Prime Minister’s FloodRelief Fund. (ADB, 2009)

Embankment and Spur

The Government of India rehabilitated thedamaged embankment Indian governmentdiverted the Koshi River as usual way bybuilt up three coffer dam in 26th January.Spur no. 11 and 12 has built up by Nepaland India (ADB, 2009).

Road

The Government of India rebuilt 12 km ofroads damaged segment of the East–WestHighway

Health

Relief-Government of Nepal establishedtemporary 10 bed hospital in Rastriya NimaviSchool in Laukahi.

Drinking water and Sanitation

Similarly, the World Vision, constructedtoilet, tube well in the shelter camp.Department of Irrigation (DOI) built up1000 shallow tube well in shelter camp.

Agriculture

With ADB grant, DOI reconstructedirrigation project in the damaged area ofPashim Kushaha and Haripur. Similarly,DOI also reconstructed the damagedirrigation canal in Sunsari through Sunsari- Morang irrigation project. Ministry ofAgriculture removed the sand from theagrarian land.

Shelter

UN-HABITAT built 235 houses includingthe squatter families.

Box 3.6: Reconstructionand Rehabilitation after2008 Koshi floodADB provided $ 25,600,000 grant forEmergency Flood Damage RehabilitationProgram to be conducted on 3 districts-Sunsari, Kanchanpur and Kailali. The ClosingDate of the project is 31 December 2012 andis still an ongoing project. The objective ofthe Project is to restore economic activity inthe Project Districts and improve thelivelihood of the people affected by the 2008monsoon floods in the eastern and farwestern regions of Nepal. (ADB, 2009) TheProject in Sunsari District includes thefollowing parts:

Part A: Agriculture

(i) Distribution of seeds, fingerlings,compost, and basic farm equipment;

(ii) Provision of extension services, trainingfor farming on sandy soil, and socialmobilization activities;

(iii) Rehabilitation of fishponds, agriculturecollection centers, and market places.

Part B: Irrigation

(i) Reconstruction and rehabilitation ofsurface irrigation systems including theimprovement of head works, canals, drains,aqueducts, gates, outlets, and inlets, canalservice roads, culverts and small bridges;and (ii) Rehabilitation of shallow tube wells.

Part C: Water Supply and Sanitation

(i) Construction of 4 small overhead watersupply systems and installation of about3,500 shallow tube wells in Sunsari District;(ii) Design and implementation of a healthand hygiene education and awarenessprogram; (iii) Construction of householdlevel latrines; and (iv) Implementation of acommunity mobilization program.

Part D: Roads

Construction of the Koshi Bridge at Chatara.

| 103


Ch

ap

ter

3

• Absence of appropriate registrationsystem caused delay in executing reliefefforts

• No orientation training in clusterplanning particularly in emergency shelterin DUDBC/division office

• No provision of emergency budget toprocure relief materials for emergencyshelter

• Inadequate partnership developmentbetween government agencies and thehumanitarian agencies in pre-disasterphase

ResponseTrigger of information by media and officialchannel, in both top down and bottom upapproach and informal international inquirymainly from India.• Gaps in information flow• Inadequate initial rescue facilities• Shortage of Human Resources in earlier

phase• Use of schools for emergency shelter

problematic• Varied standards• The relief items in shelters and NFI,

food provided were of varied standardsranging from highest to lowest quality.

• Disposal of dead animals• Damage and needs assessmentDistribution mechanismLong time taken in developing thedistribution mechanisms. The selected sitewas too far from the displaced locationraising property security problem mainlythe cattle and making drainage and accessroad was costly.• Poor Shelter materials• Camp management was a great issue in

Koshi flood in terms of SPHERE andother standards and cluster approach

• Absence of single operating centre like EOC at district

• Persuading DUDBC to provide financialassistance for winterization of shelter

Lessons learnedStrengthsPreparedness• Availability of Contingency Planning

(CP) in some clusters particularly inshelter

• Endorsement of cluster approach by thegovernment and humanitarian agencies

• Partial establishment of Early warningsystem. No human fatality from the flood

• Coordination mechanism throughOCHA among the humanitarian agencies

Response• Prompt activation of DDRC and

CNDRC• Quick initial rescue and relief• Presence of Humanitarian actors right

from the beginning• Congruency among the cluster partners• Sharing of responsibilities and

accountabilitiesRecovery• Good coordination than in the previous

disasters• Mutually agreed Nepal Standard set• Risk and vulnerability assessment carried

out• Frequent cluster interaction with

delineation of responsibility• Linked with comprehensive

reconstruction and rehabilitation activitiesIssues and ChallengesPreparedness• No pre-designated evacuation sites• No pre-identified land for camp

settlement• Absence of pre-positioning of shelter

kits• Partial application of Contingency

Planning• Unclear role and responsibility of

technical line agencies• No vulnerability assessment of public

buildings which could be used forevacuations

104 |

Ch

ap

ter 3

Areas for improvement• Identification of evacuation sites for

emergency shelter such as host families,open spaces/land, public buildingsincluding schools

• Supporting mechanism to host familiesneeds to be established. People takingshelter in the host families in Koshi floodwas 15 -20%

• Vulnerability assessment of publicbuildings is to be done to accommodatelarge no of people during emergency

• Using schools for emergency shelter morethan a week is to be avoided

• People taking spontaneous emergencyshelter in open spaces like road sides,river banks needs to be relocated intotemporary camps at the earliest

• Emergency shelter camp location needsto be identified

• Standardization of assessment tools(formats etc) for shelter and clearassessment process to be defined

• Integration of shelter materials and NFI,livestock, livelihood and other thematiccluster

• Coordination among various stakeholders- government, humanitarian actors, locals,line agencies, national and district levels,

• Clear cut roles and responsibilities of allshelter stakeholders

• Information sharing mechanisms amongagencies

• Capacity assessment of variousorganizations at various levels, nationalas well as local

• Strong data base of disaggregated datato respond the various needs of thepeople effectively during emergency

• Standardization of shelter kits• Pre-positioning of shelter materials at

strategic places• Collaboration of all (government, civil

society, NGOs, external partners, andclusters (NFI) for planning andpreparedness

• EOC center needs to be established atcentral level as well as the district level

• Damage assessment format needs to bedeveloped and endorsed by all agencies

• Information management mechanismneeds to be developed

| 105

Flood victims wade through flood water to a safe zone in Sunsaridistrict after the Koshi river dam collapsed

Photo Courtesy: EPA


Ch

ap

ter

3

106 |

The 2009 Jajarkot Diarrhea Outbreak

Event ScenarioAn outbreak of Acute Watery Diarrhea(AWD) that began in early May 2009 affectedmore than 58 thousands of population inthe Districts of the Mid Western Regionand Far Western Region of Nepal. Diarrhearelated deaths continue to be reportedthough the trend in death numbers wasdecreasing. According to the Ministry ofHealth and Population (MoHP), about 206VDCs of 20 districts were affected by thediarrhea. The most affected was Jajarkotdistrict followed by Rukum. A significantnumber of people also got treated duringthe outbreak.

Direct Loss and DamageHuman Casualties

According to the Ministry of Health andPopulation (MoHP), the cumulative deathtoll from diarrhea related causes was 314deaths in all VDCs of diarrhea affecteddistricts, till 23 August 2009. The mostaffected was Jajarkot district (153 deaths).Rukum also suffered with 48 deaths. Thenumber of people treated was 58874.

The details of the cumulative number oftreated and deaths since 1st May 2009 to 23August 2009 are given in the Table 3.19.

Figure 3.18: Diarrhorea outbreak in mid west and far west regionSource: MoHP, 2009

Ch

ap

ter 3

Figure 3.19: Number of cases and deaths by districtsSource: HoHP/EDCD/WHO

| 107

S. No Affected No.of Health No. of People District VDC Camp Treated Death No.

1 Jajarkot 30 51 25476 1532 Rukum 23 23 12705 483 Dolpa 7 7 501 74 Rolpa 9 6 664 65 Salyan 4 2 526 66 Dailekh 32 18 6842 257 Bajura 4 4 122 68 Dadeldhura 3 2 153 59 Doti 20 6 1344 1010 Surkhet 17 9 4492 1411 Kanchanpur 3 1 288 112 Pyuthan 3 2 250 213 Makwanpur 1 1 137 014 Dang 1 1 61 015 Achham 22 8 5396 2116 Bajhang 2 1 757 717 Baitadi 16 2 443 818 Dhading 1 0 103 019 Kailali 8 3 89 420 Sarlahi 1 1 40 2

Total 206 148 58874 314

Source: MoHP/EDCD/WHO

Table 3.19: Details of the cumulative number of treated and deaths since 1st May 2009 to 23 August2009


Ch

ap

ter

3

108 |

Response

The MoHP/Epidemiology and DiseaseControl Division (EDCD) took lead in theresponse at the central level. The DistrictPublic Health Offices (DPHOs) in thevarious Districts were leading the responseto the diarrhea outbreak at the district level.

GoN announced a Short Term Plan andLong Term Plan for the diarrhea affectedareas in Mid and Far Western Regions. Short-Term Plan included approaches tosurveillance, case management, outbreakconfirmation, prevention and control, andimmediate response.

Epidemiology and Disease Control Division(EDCD), World Health Organization(WHO), International Nepal Fellowship(INF), Nepal Family Health Program(NFHP), Helvetas and CARE Nepalsupported with health workers. MoHP,EDCD, WHO, Nepal Red Cross Society(NRCS), UNICEF, Development ProjectService Center (DEPROSC), Nepal Waterfor Health (NEWAH), Save the Children,MERLIN, and Adventist Development andRelief Agency (ADRA) Nepal providedmedical supplies.

Health

Respective DPHO mobilized Health Postsand Sub-Health Posts-medical staff,including Female Community HealthVolunteers (FCHVs) and Maternal ChildHealth (MCH) workers to provide medicalsupport. Political Party members alsoprovided support to the affectedcommunities including health camps. Besidesdistributing medicines and mobilizing healthworkers, health awareness campaigns werealso launched in those districts.

As part of surveillance, EDCD/MoHPalerted DPHOs and Regional HealthDirectorate to enhance the surveillanceactivities. WHO distributed surveillanceforms to the 15 Surveillance MedicalOfficers (SMO) located in the affected areas,as well as to the case management protocols.Weekly reports were submitted based oninformation collected on a daily basis in theaffected VDCs. International Federation ofRed Cross and Red Crescent Societies(IFRC) activated its internal global systemto provide alerts to donor and relief partners.

At the central level, NRCS formed workingteam for the AWD issues comprised of

Figure 3.20: Trends of diarrheal cases in mid and far western region of NepalSource: MoHP/EDCD/WHO

Ch

ap

ter 3

| 109

health coordinator as technical leadersupported by the communication and healthpractitioner of the different departmentssuch as DM Department and ProcurementSection while Disaster ManagementDepartment took lead of the entireoperation.

The Lutheran World Federation (LWF)supported health workers in Dailekh,Dadeldhura and Surkhet.

WHO sent a surveillance officer to Surkhetto assist with the surveillance in the region.

Surveillance• EDCD/MoHP, alerted all District Health

Offices and Regional Health Directoratesto enhance the surveillance activities inorder to recognize any unusual eventsrelated to diarrheal diseases.

• WHO assisted EDCD and districts onsetting up the surveillance system withthe support of partners on the ground.

• Outbreak Medical Officer in Rukumassisted DHO on surveillance andoutbreak management.

• NPHL sent laboratory technician toJajarkot for further collection ofsamples/specimens.

Logistics and Supplies• WHO provided 4 additional diarrheal

disease kits, 3 to go to the Mid WesternDevelopment Region and 1 for the FarWestern Development Region.

• Save the Children handed over 1,512bottles of Ringer Lactate, drugs fortreating 200 persons and 2000 packetsof ORS to the DHO of Jajarkot district.The agency also supported an additional10,000 packets of ORS to Rukum districtand 2,000 ORS packets to Dailekhdistrict.

• LWF provided 12,000 ORS, 400 healthkits, 12,000 aquatabs, and 8,800 soapseach to Dailekh, Surkhet and Dadeldhura.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene(WASH)The WASH Cluster response in Jajarkot wascoordinated by Water Supply and SanitationSub Divisional Offices (WSSSDO). It aimedto reach 100% of the households throughmultiple mobilized volunteers. The WASHCluster agreed on common messaging forhygiene campaigns. Partners and multiplecommunity volunteers were mobilized withhygiene promotion materials and how touse ORS and water treatment agents.

WSSDO, DHO, NRCS, UNICEF, DFID,GTZ, USAID, DEPROSC, Hospital andRehabilitation Centre for the DisabledChildren (HRDC), Youth Awareness RaisingCenter Nepal (YARCN), NEWAHsupported by Concern Worldwide, ADRANepal, Paschim Pailla, and the NationalHealth Education Information andCommunication Centre (NHEICC)supported hygiene promotion in Jajarkotand Rukum Districts. Similarly there wereresponses in Surkhet, Dailekh, Rolpa, Dotiand Dadeldhura by various agencies;including Oxfam, LWF, youth groups weremobilised for distribution of chlorine tablets,hygiene promotion, cleaning of water

Figure 3.21: Treatment of diarrhea patientKhagenkot Health Post, JajarkotPhoto Courtesy: Dr. R. Kafle


Ch

ap

ter

3

110 |

sources and villages, chlorination of watersystem.

UNICEF along with DHO, NRCS, WSSDO,DEPROSC and National Health EducationInformation and Communication Centre(NHEICC) designed and developedaddit ional standard messages anddisseminated the information throughoutJajarkot district through flex chart and generalinformation booklets• In Surkhet district, the NRCS chapter

distributed water purification liquidin1000HH together with DFID/CSP.

• In Rukum district, the NRCS chapterdistributed 5,500 bottles of waterpurification liquid and 8000 satchels ofORS. NRCS HQ dispatched 20, 000poster on health and hygiene. NRCS HQtechnical team in the field oriented 100volunteers particularly on WATSAN andmobilized in the rural areas for theawareness, evacuation of the patientsand demonstrating water treatment. Thechapter further mobilized volunteers forthe 16 VDC for the awareness raisingpurpose.

• In Salyan district, theNRCS chapter mobilized94 volunteers for theawareness raising (IECdistribution, messageflow and how to usePYUSH), two people ineach VDC. NRCSchapter also assistedVDC to establish theworking committee inthe four most affectedVDC, lead by the VDCsecretary.

• In Dadeldhura, LWFmobilized volunteers tocreate awareness relatedto personal hygiene andpubl ic health. The

volunteers educated households onmaintaining personal hygiene, use ofwater treatment agents, ORS preparationand promotion of safe human excretadisposal.

Nutrition

Nutrition related information materials wereincorporated into the WASH informationcampaign, including the message on theimportance to continue to provide nutritiousfood to sick children with nutritionsurveillance in various districts.

Protection

The Protection Cluster developed a childprotection and nutrition checklist to assessthe impact of the diarrhea outbreak onchildren as marginalized and low socio-economic status people were the mostaffected by diarrhea, according to DPHOdata. Similarly, psychosocial care wererequired for children and surviving familymembers from diarrhea affected familiesand there was also need for specialized care

Figure 3.22: IEC materials to raise awareness in WASH/UNICEFSource: GON/UNICEF

Ch

ap

ter 3

| 111

to pregnant and lactating women affectedby diarrhea.

Coordination

The Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry ofHealth and Population, and the Ministry ofPhysical Planning and Works andhumanitarian UN agencies had a series ofjoint meetings to streamline the coordinationamong the different groups.• District Level Coordination: There were

regular coordination meetings under theDistrict Disaster Relief Committee(DDRC), chaired by the Chief DistrictOfficer (CDO) in DHQ where the headof the government line agenciesdiscussed the ongoing response, identifythe gaps and plan the future responseaccordingly. On 1 August, the Ministerfor Health and Population chaired theall-party meeting in Jajarkot DHQ. Themeeting reviewed the diarrhea outbreakresponse activities and requested allsections of the society for additionalsupport.

• Central Health Coordination Meeting:Health Cluster had a central levelcoordination meetings to continue to setup the surveillance system and monitordata and identify the communicationchannel for relaying surveillance datao Health cluster members were to

identify stocks that can be mobilizedimmediately and inform WHO

o WHO was to collaborate with theMoHP in prioritizing the stocks tobe mobilized by army helicopter

o UN OCHA facilitated weeklyOperational IASC meetings inKathmandu to provide a multiclusterforum discussion on the approachand response to the diarrhea outbreak

• Regional Health Coordination meetings:Regional Health Coordination Teammeeting chaired by MoHP outbreak focalpoint to review the situation, discuss on

gaps and find out possible ways forwardto response.

• Prevention Coordination: On 2 August,the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA)issued letters to CDOs in the westernregions to emphasise the importance ofconducting DDRC meetings in responseto disasters, as well to coordinate DDRCmeetings to discuss preventionapproaches to the diarrhea outbreak.

Response per District• In Jajarkot district, Save the Children

trained and mobilized 567 volunteers fordistribution and training on the use ofORS at the household level.

• In Jajarkot district, NRCS chaptermobilized 18 volunteers for thehousehold level awareness through IECmaterials and distributing on-spot ORSand water treatment tablets. The teamalso helped the affected families byproviding evacuation service for themedical treatment. NRCS district chapterdistributed 100,000 water treatmenttablets and 1000 ORS. Similarly, 100tarpaulins and 100 blankets weredistributed to the health care centers. 50stretchers were kept standby in regionalwarehouse Nepaljung. NRCS assignedtwo volunteer each for 9 VDC.

• In Sindhuli district, NRCS Kalpabrikshyasub chapter assisted Kalpbrishya PHCto operate emergency health facilities inthe affected area. DP unit (Sahan andDhamile) functioning under the NRCSsupported CBMHRR program also senttheir 9 member team (volunteers) to theaffected site to assist the health campand evacuating people to the healthcenters for the further treatment.

• In Rukum district, NRCS chapter helpedthe operational unit (hospitals) to set-upemergency treatment units by providingblankets and tarpaulins.

• In Rukum district, Save the Childrentrained and mobilized 819 volunteers for


Ch

ap

ter

3

112 |

distribution and training on the use ofORS at the household level.

• In Rukum district, the HumanDevelopment and Community Services(HDCS) agency provided medicalservices in remote villages of Rukum.The medical personnel of the outreachprogram were deployed from the HDCS-run hospital based in Chaurjhari.

• In Dailekh district, Save the Childrentrained and mobilized 441 volunteers fordistribution and training on the use ofORS at the household level.

• In Surkhet district, the NRCS chaptermobilized 80 volunteers for theassessment and awareness actions. Thepeoples in the affected village fled to thecity centers and took shelter in schools.The chapter distributed 20 blankets and5 tarps to the 35 families taking shelterin school.

• In Kailali district, the NRCS chapterconducted awareness campaigns in theaffected VDC and broadcasted radiomessages for one and half months againstdiarrhea through the FM Radio in locallanguage.

• In Pyuthan district, the NRCS chapterconducted orientation program to itsvolunteers to be deployed to the affectedareas for the awareness campaign. NRCSchapter mobilized 98 volunteers in thatarea.

Funding

The Ministry of Health and Populationmobilized NRs. 27,000,000 worth ofmedicine to the diarrhea affected areas.

UNICEF mobilized US$ 93,330 frominternal funds to respond for the diarrheaoutbreak response. US$ 82,560 for WASHactivities and US$ 10,770 for Health relatedactivities.

The Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) fromits in-country partners and partner National

Red Cross Societies supported the amountof NRs. 19,655,212 to fund its operation inresponse to the diarrhea outbreak. Thebudget was based on a preliminary proposal,and the operation funded throughcontributions from the Finnish Embassy,Swiss Development Corporation (SDC),UNICEF, the Austr ian , Be lg ian ,Luxembourg and Swiss Red Cross Societies.

Save the Children Nepal supportedUS$100,000 to cover the funding gap forthe Save the Children planned activities tothe diarrhea outbreak. Save the Childrenchanneled US$10,000 from regular programsfor the diarrhea outbreak response. Save theChildren received US$ 3,000 from Save theChildren Headquarters and US$ 15,000 fromthe Halady Murchy Fund, Save the ChildrenUS, for the diarrhea response, to supportactivities in line with the GoN Short-Termand Long-Term Plans.

Challenges & Gaps

Access to diarrhea affected areas andcommunication due to the difficult terrainand bad weather conditions remained aconstraint for the delivery of emergencymedical services as well as monitoring thesupplies to the population in need.Enhancing the need for better surveillancewas also a great challenge due to thecontinuing monsoon season which expeditedthe spread of the disease to other districts.• Transportation: Transportation of

supplies from the centre/districtheadquarters and from DistrictHeadquarter to the VDCs remained achallenge. The diarrhea affected villageswere remote, in some areas it took fivedays to reach from District Headquarters(DHQ). Weather conditions alsohampered air services

• Logistics coordination: In Jajarkot, thelogistics base was located at Chourjahariairstrip in Rukum District, four hours

Ch

ap

ter 3

walk from DHQ. And there was a lackof coordination between the logisticcentre in Chourjahari and DHQ due tocommunication constraints

• Access: The majority of affected areaswere difficult to access, requiring daysof walking, and therefore it was difficultto transport required medicines and relaytimely information

• Telecommunications: Nepal TelecomGSM mobile was only available from1000hrs to 1600hrs. The CDMAtelephone was static during the evening.There was limited communication withareas located outs ide Distr ic tHeadquarters, which had negativelyimpacted on timely information sharing.It was difficult to track supply anddemand

• Electricity: There was no electricity inDistrict Headquarters. Solar power wasrequired for the telephone battery, laptopand other electrical equipment, includingCDMA mobile phones

• Staff Supplies: The deployed health teamsneeded to carry sufficient supplies,including water and food – as the majorityof the areas were food insecure

Key Health Gaps• Access to health facilities for affected

population in remote areas• Access to affected areas for the health

staff. Some areas were only accessible byfoot, which prolonged the time to getthe supplies to the household level

• Health information management systemneeds to be strengthened

• Gathering of medical supplies at roaddrop-points/plane drop-points needs tobe managed

• Logistics constraints for the delivery ofmedical items to remote affected areas

Medicines were delivered by helicopterinto the District and transported toaffected areas by porters and mules

Key WASH gaps• Lack of water purification tablets in the

affected areas. Chlorine solution remaineda gap, with 30,000 households requiringchlorine solution, particularly in Rukum

• Logistics of WASH supplies to remoteaffected areas. Some areas are onlyaccessible by foot, which prolongs thetime to get the supplies to the householdlevel

• Dried Water Source-As the majority ofsprings and the water sources dried updue to lack of rainfall during and thewinter drought people were compelledto drink and fetch the contaminatedwater available elsewhere

• Coordination of the response at the locallevel remained a challenge

Issues• Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC)

and Consumer's Rights Protection Forum(CRPF) raised concern over the qualityof food distributed by WFP since midApril to mid July in the Mid and Far Westareas affected by the diarrhea outbreakclaiming that the food was inedible.They also raised concern over the reportmade public by the government statingthe quality of food distributed by WFPwas good.

• The activities of various organizationswere not harmonized. There was a needto harmonise and come up with acoordinated approach to control theepidemics

• The care of the orphan children includingother vulnerable was also an issue in thechanging context.

| 113


Ch

ap

ter

3

114 |

A doctor from AMDA- headquarter treating the Diarrhea affecetd child, Jajarkot, 2009Photo Courtesy: amdainternational.com

CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICESON DISASTER RISK

MANAGEMENT

| 115


Community people engaged in vulnerability capacity assessment & mapping, HumlaPhoto Courtesy: NSET 2009

Ch

ap

ter 4

Figure 4.1: Street Drama on Disaster Awareness performed inKathmandu, ISDR 2010Photo Courtesy: NSET

Chapter 4

Good Practices on Disaster Risk Management

World Conference on DisasterReduction (WCDR) held in Kobe,Japan in 2005 adopted a globalblueprint for disaster riskreduction known as HyogoFramework for Action (HFA). TheHyogo Framework assists theefforts of nations andcommunities to become moreresilient to, and cope better withthe hazards that threaten theirdevelopment gains. Itsoverarching goal is to buildresilience of nations andcommunities to disasters, byachieving substantive reductionof disaster losses by 2015 – in lives,and in the social, economic, andenvironmental assets ofcommunities and countries. TheHFA offers five areas of prioritiesfor action, guiding principles and

| 117

practical means for achieving disasterresilience for vulnerable communitiesin the context of sustainabledevelopment.

Since then, there have been moreorganized efforts on DRR underspecified HFA priorities in Nepal bothat national as well as community level.Such efforts which we can moreaccurately recognize as “GoodPractices” are scattered all over thecountry. Amongst such many efforts,some are gathered in this chapter withthe view to share and explore thepossibilities of replication in manyother parts of the country. These arefew good examples and we can seenumber of similar but distinct conceptsand experiences from different parts.But the need is how we can replicate& scale up such efforts?


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionNepal faces a myriad of hazards. Differenthazards such as flood, landslides, fire,storm, cold wave and epidemics arecausing enormous loss of lives andproperties in Nepal every year. The entirecountry from East to West is highly proneto earthquake disaster and already facedseveral small to mega earthquakedisasters in the past.

Disaster preparedness activities aretherefore important as a precursor for amore effective humanitarian responseand for reducing humanitarian caseloadsduring disasters. Experience confirmsthat an effective humanitarian responseat the onset of a crisis is heavilyinfluenced by the level of preparednessplanning of responding agencies, as wellas the capacities and resources availableat all levels.

Nepal should therefore be prepared incase of emergencies and disasters toprotect it’s people from personal injuryand loss of lives and protect propertyfrom damage. Emergency and DisasterPreparedness is one importantcomponent of Disaster Risk Reduction.It consists of actions intended to increasethe coping capacity of districts and makethem more resilient to disasters.

Considering the facts, Ministry of HomeAffairs (MOHA) has started thepreparation of Disaster PreparednessPlans at national, regional and district

levels in the past few years. MOHA isleading the preparedness initiativesjointly with other Government Agencies,UN Agencies, National/InternationalOrganizations, Civil Societies, DPNet etc.

As a result of this initiative, Nationalworkshop in 2010 recommended 21points and approved by Central LevelNatural Disaster Response Committee(CNDRC) for an effective disasterpreparedness initiative at district, regionaland national levels. One of therecommendations was to make “DistrictLead Support Agencies (DLSA)” in 67districts among the national andinternational agencies with an objectiveto support District Disaster ReliefCommitte (DDRC) for preparing “DistrictDisaster Preparedness Plan’. It hasresulted in very positive feedbacks fromall the actors. As a result, more than 60districts completed the preparation ofDisaster Preparedness Plan including fiveregional authorities that drafted theStandard Operating Procedures (SOP) in2010. It was realized that thesepreparedness initiatives have achievedmajor success in responding the floodand landslide affected people in 2010.

DPR Plan is to be developed further in all75 districts and humanitarian agenciessupposed to play important roles ofDistrict Lead Support Agency (DLSA) asusual. Further to this DDRC would takethe lead role jointly with DistrictDevelopment Committee for allnecessary supports required for

Name of the Case Study/Practice

Disaster Preparedness and Response PlanningTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseGovernance/Mutlihazard/Preparedness

Geographic Location75 districts throughout Nepal

118 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

preparing DRR Plan in the districts.

The Disaster Preparedness and ResponsePlan (DPRP) aims to minimize humancasualties and loss of properties due todisasters. The plan specifies the actionsneeded to address each of the disasterpreparedness issues and to achieve thegoals, who/which organization willcomplete each action and under whattimeline. The plan hence includes who isgoing to do what and by when and inwhat order for the disaster response &preparedness.

A Guidance Note 2011 has beenformulated for preparing the DisasterPreparedness and Response Plan. Thisnote was prepared from the feedback ofall the humanitarian partners. Thetaskforce was formed under theleadership of Under Secretary/DisasterManagement Section/MOHA with therepresentative from UN Agencies, NepalRed Cross Society, Association of INGOsin Nepal Task Group on DisasterManagement (AINTDGM) and DPNet-Nepal.

ObjectiveTo develop Disaster Preparedness andResponse Plan (DPRP) for all the 75districts of Nepal in order to minimizeloss of human lives and properties causedby disasters

Beneficiary PopulationAll the Nepali People

Lesson Learnt

• Inter-Agency coordination isinevitable but demands high level ofcommitment.

• Major Stakeholders can play lesseffective role in the absence ofdefined provision/mandate to workon disaster preparedness.

• Central level coordination needs tobe more effectively trickled down orreplicated at district level.

Replication PotentialDisaster Preparedness and Response Plan(DPRP) has been envisioned to beprepared for all the 75 districts of Nepal.Also, this is not just one-point activity.Timely updates on the DPRP is very muchrequired.

PublicationGuidance Note: Disaster Preparednessand Response Planning 2011

Implementing AgencyMinistry of Home Affairs/Government ofNepal

| 119

Figure 4.2: Guidance noteon DPRP


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionDuring the flood of September 2008, thewater came so fast that it was chest-highonly four minutes after it first entered theMohana riverside communities. But thecommunities followed the warning andevacuation plans which they had developedand practiced beforehand. When the waterof the Mohana River started to rise on 20September, the sirens were sounded at 3A.M. The Disaster Preparedness Committee(DPC), the Early Warning System (EWS)committee and the Search and Rescue (S&R)team together managed to evacuate thepeople on time. The communities lost fewerlives (in fact, none at all) and significantly lessproperty than surrounding communities, butsurrounding communities also benefited fromthe EWSs as the project communities spreadthe word.Prior to the project intervention, there wasno systematized EWS, and people relied ontheir “instinct,” visible flooding upstreamand flood-related smells and sounds whichresulted in heavy loss of lives and propertyevery year. Early warning systems (EWSs)thus reduced vulnerability by providingindividuals and communities with theinformation they need to act in a timely andappropriate manner to avoid flood-relatedrisks. The project Kailali Disaster RiskReduction Initiatives (KDRRI) implementedby Mercy Corps Nepal, in partnership withthe Kailali District Chapter of the Nepal RedCross Society (NRCS Kailali) with supportfrom DIPECHO built effective, integratedsystems that included not just the physicalinfrastructure but also provisions for technicalmonitoring and warning, and steps toincrease public awareness.EWSs involved monitoring upstream points

and passing information and when flood andrainfalls levels make it necessary, warnings todownstream communities. The project formedEWS sub-committees in each community toprovide accurate information. It worked onbuilding the capacity of the committeemembers to understand the significance ofriver and rainfall levels.The project put in place the communicationequipment, used gauges to measure river andrainfall levels and record their trend. Woodenposts with yellow (warning-get ready) and red(danger-need to evacuate) bands wereinstalled along riverbanks.Local FM radio were used for broadcasts todisseminate warnings, the project alsoprovided CDMA telephones to link theupstream recorder stations with downstreamcommunities as well as with the Departmentof Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) fieldoffice in six communities bordering theMohana River in the far-western Terai – namelyLalitpur, Mohanpur, Shivaratnapur, Bisanpur,Manikapur, and Jokahiyapur.The project communities further preparedevacuation plans incorporating early warningand performed simulations.During the monsoon season, data collectionhas been devised to record at hourly intervals,24 hours seven days a week. Historical datafrom previous monsoon seasons has formedthe basis for identifying critical water levelsand rainfall thresholds. When these levels areexceeded, a warning is disseminated throughvarious channels, including local FM radiostations, telephones, megaphones andhandoperated sirens. DHM’s cooperationensures the effectiveness and sustainabilityof the EWS and enables communities to


Early Warning System - Forewarned is forearmedTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseEnhance Early Warning/Flood/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationKailali District

120 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

link into the DHM’s forecasting division,which monitors the arrival of the monsoon,the duration of rainfall, flood estimates,and other useful information. Data fromthe DHM’s nine hydrological stations andsix metrological stations along the MohanaRiver and its tributaries are incorporatedinto the operation of the EWSs.An EWS design and managementcommittee was formed under thechairmanship of the district chiefengineer. Its main responsibility is tomaintain the communication system,support the recorders and ensure thatcommunication equipment continues tofunction. District authorities, the press, thesecurity forces, the NRCS, DHM and otherlocal DRR stakeholders are represented inthe committee. Encouraged by its positiveexperience during the 2008 monsoonseason, the project hopes to expandCommunity-based EWSs across the entireMohana watershed.The project thus played an important rolein the establishment of EWSs. Prior to itsintervention, locals had very littleknowledge about how floods occurred andhow they could protect themselves. Now,people understand how floods occur, howmuch rainfall upstream will cause floodingin their area, what action should be taken,how to get warning information and howto prepare effective evacuation plans.ObjectiveTo reduce the risk of flooding and helpcommunities to prepare for and respondto floods to decrease their dependence onexternal aidBeneficiary PopulationSix communities bordering the MohanaRiver in the far-western Terai – namelyLalitpur, Mohanpur, Shivaratnapur,Bisanpur, Manikapur, and Jokahiyapur ofKailali districtLessons Learnt• Systems must be set up in accordance

with the demand for information• As weather patterns grow increasingly

more unpredictable, the periodallocated for the recording of rainfalland water levels should be extended

on either side of the usual dates for theonset and end of the monsoon

• It is essential to use existing resources,structures and technology rather thansetting up parallel systems

Replication PotentialIt is a successful initiative of community-based disaster risk reduction and can beeasily replicated and developed elsewherePublicationCommunity-Based Disaster Risk Reduction– Good Practice (Kailali Disaster RiskReduction Initiatives)Implementing AgencyMercy Corps Nepal, Kailali District Chapterof the Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCSKailali), DIPECHO

Figure 4.3: Water –level-gauge installed at the riverbank

Figure 4.4: Communicatingusing an upstream recorder

| 121


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionThere was no formal system of watching theriver during periods of high water. Wateringress was not observable in many places,due to the lie of the land and densevegetation during the monsoon period. Floodwaters often entered houses before peoplewere even aware that there was a threat,making it impossible to save anything. Inaddition, as due to the prevalent rainfallpatterns, floods tended to come at night,many people lost sleep during the high waterperiods, due to stress and worry.This made the communities very much keenon the project being carried out by PracticalAction towards strengthening the capacityof communities to manage early warningsystems to reduce the impacts of floods. Theproject components such as; Setting up ofFormal “watch and warn” rotas, or full timewatchmen paid during the critical floodperiods to watch on behalf of everyone;Identifying the Sites giving the best view ofboth the river and the community andestablishing the form of warning whicheveryone could understand were highlyconvincing and agreeable for the community.In 2002 as a part of its pilot project, PracticalAction erected an observation tower andsiren system in Bhandara, Chitwan. Theproject was implemented to assess thepotential and opportunity for purely locallevel observation and warning of flood withits objectives set very much within theoperational and security environmentprevalent in 2002. Specifically as governmentinstitution were finding it increasingly difficultto operate in many rural locations, thedeteriorating security environment furthermade it imperative that whatever systemswere established they be community

managed and independent of outsidesupport. Construction of the tower andprovision of siren systems were managed byPractical Action while site identification, landpurchase, community mobilization,awareness raising and establishing a usercommittee were the responsibility of thecommunity.In expanding its program, Practical Actionchose to remain in the same geographicalarea extending downstream, west, to thecommunities of Piple, Jagatpur and Meghaulion the Rapti river in Chitwan, and then toPithauli, Kolhuwa and Parsauni on theNarayani river, in Nawalparasi. Within thesecommunities approximately 34,500individuals now benefit from the setting upof the EWS and other project activities, withthe latter including the distribution of 70 lifejackets and other life saving equipment,construction of 15 boats, 6 bridges, 9 spursand dykes, and 6 shelters, as well as a broadrange of public awareness and educationactivities including poster and leafletdistributions, FM broadcasts, street theatre,song and dance competitions and schoolsactivities.Chitwan and Nawalparasi are among themost flood prone districts in Nepal, appearinghigh on the lists of loss and damage eachyear. Towers were erected in 5 out of the 6communities targeted, incorporating designimprovements influenced both by previouslearning and ideas generated within the newproject area. Experience suggested relianceon mains electricity was unwise, so alternativesources of warning were discussed. Studyrevealed no existing ‘indigenous’ warningsystems - which was not unexpected giventhat most communities were made up ofmigrants and flood was a recent phenomena


Establishing Community Based Early Warning Systems inNepalTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseEnhance Early Warning/Flood/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationChitwan and Nawalparasi

122 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

- nor that any locally manufactured handsirens or warning systems were available. Assuch it was agreed to opt for ‘stand alone’electrical siren systems.By the monsoon of 2007, systems werecompleted in all five locations. The “watch”component was managed differently in eachcommunity, but a common warning systemwas agreed throughout the area, as a resultof an inter-community exchange program.The first sounding of a siren indicated thatcommunities should prepare, while thesecond one meant that they should evacuate.So far sirens were only transmitted so thecommunities established relay systems relianton volunteers going door to door to pass onwarnings received. Evacuation in all locationswas further assisted by other componentsof the program such as the improvement ofbridges and provision of boats.Genuine intra-community warning systemswere established to which the siren was onlya trigger. There is now additional time forpeople to gather members, valuable assets,live stock and stored food. The system hasproved robust when external sources andinformation has failed. Communities havefelt empowered and increasingly there isnow less fatalism about floods andinevitability of the destruction that they bring.ObjectiveTo strengthen the capacity of communitiesto manage early warning systems to reducethe impacts of floodsBeneficiary PopulationResidents of Chitwan and Nawalparasi districtLessons Learnt• Investment in EWS is a cost effective use

of limited resources where risk can beanticipated and measured

• High tech/high cost systems are not onlyinappropriate but unsustainable. Use oflocal resources both cuts costs andensures greater ownership

• Systems should provide information, notwarnings per se. Making informationintelligible and user friendly arefundamental to any system

• Users of information should be activeparticipants in systems, not beneficiariesof them. Systems must be established

which put users first and at their centre• Systems should be based on the principal

of “demand for”, not “supply of”information

• Successful EWS are the product ofeffective person to personcommunication and efficient socialnetworks. Communication technologiesmerely complement these

• Systems should dictate the technologyand not technology the system

Replication PotentialPractical Action and its partners believe thattheir activities in piloting EWS in Nepal havehighlighted the applicability, costeffectiveness, utility and its high replicationpotential in other areas.PublicationEarly Warning Saving LivesImplementing AgencyPractical Action

Figure 4.6: Local residentpracticing on the siren

Figure 4.5: One of theInstalled tower, Local residentinforming on the gaugereading

| 123


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionConstruction of residential buildings in adeveloping country like Nepal is primarilycarried out by the informal sector, mostlythe owner/builders. The prevailingconstruction practice does notincorporate earthquake resistantcomponents and the existing housingstock is highly vulnerable to earthquakes.This shows a clear need of producingmore trained masons by skill upgradingof the practicing masons as well as thenewcomers in the construction sector.

Masons are the key actors who translatedesigns into reality, especially indeveloping countries where more than90% of the buildings are non-engineered,and the masons are commonly servingas the “best technical hands” availablefor building construction. Therefore,masons need to be aware of thetechnology they are working with inorder to ensure optimum, efficient andeffective use of the building materialsand the construction processes.

NSET in its quest of promoting saferconstruction practice began trainingmasons several years ago with theobjective of making them aware of thetechniques used for risk-reduction witha full understanding of “why” and “how”.

NSET started providing On-the-jobtraining and classroom lectures for themasons during the School EarthquakeSafety Program (SESP) in 1999. As it wasobserved that the Mason training wasvery effective and the impact wasremarkable with high replicationpotential, Mason training became the

integral part of the school safetyprogram. However, the coverage – wasvery small as there were only few schoolsin SESP. Realizing the vital role of masonsin earthquake resistant constructionMason Training evolved as anindependent activity during 2003 as apart of Municipal program beingimplemented by NSET.

At present, the 5 day mason trainingprogram of NSET, which combines class-room training with hands-on fieldexercises, has become very popular inNepal and abroad.

The positive impact of the Mason Trainingcan be clearly observed at three majorlevels; in the community, in the attitudeof the masons trained and the mostimportant is in the construction qualityand safety level of the buildingsreconstructed. The community membershave now a better understanding andfaith on the construction technologyintroduced. This acceptance on thetechnology and availability of the skilledhuman resources will certainly result inbetter sustainability of the technology.

The masons, who were initially confusedand reluctant to the technology, are nowconfident on their work. Theirperformance has been much better. Thetrained Masons have also been trying toimplement earthquake resistantconstruction techniques in theircommunities. The organized efforts ofmasons have led to the creation ofmasons group and the group are nowadvocating for safer constructionpractice.


Promoting Safer Construction Practice- Training the masons inNepalTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseKnowledge Management-Technology Transfer/Earthquake/ Pre Disaster

Geographic LocationThroughout Nepal under various programs

124 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

The fact that trained masons are paidbetter wages than those who are nottrained and have a good reputation insociety suggests that people’s attitudestoward safety have changedconsiderably.

It is obvious that increased awarenessand enhanced capacity of masons helpimplementing building code effectivelyand practically. Making decision at thetop level alone is not sufficient, thereshould be sufficient number of capableprofessionals in the field as well for thesuccessful implementation of concept.Meanwhile, bottom-up approach ispowerful for effective building codeimplementation. But at the same time,strong policy support and environmentis indispensable for such activities. Withmulti dimensional efforts, it is not too farto achieve the goal of earthquake safeconstructions even in weak economy likeNepal.

Objective• To upgrade local craftsmen’s skill in

quality construction and developskillful working human resources inearthquake resistant construction

• Start mitigation and preparednessthrough training and awareness atcommunity level

Beneficiary PopulationAll the potential house- owners,community

Any LessonTrained manpower required forearthquake resistant constructiontechnology

Increased awareness and enhancedcapacity of masons help implementingbuilding code effectively and practically

Making decision at the top level alone isnot sufficient for the challenge ofimplementation

Bottom-up approach is powerful foreffective building code implementation

Replication PotentialMason training is effective and impactwas remarkable. The methodology iscost-efficient with high replicationpotential. The procedures developed byNSET has been adapted and used bygovernment and other organizationsworking in earthquake risk reduction.

Publication• Earthquake Resistant Construction

of Building Curriculum for MasonTraining (Guidelines for TrainingInstructors), 2005

Implementing Agency

National Society for EarthquakeTechnology, Municipalities, Departmentof Urban Development and BuildingConstruction (DUDBC)

Figure 4.7: Practicaldemonstration in the field

Figure 4.8: Participantsinvolved in group work

| 125


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail Description

Dharan is one of the municipalities whichhave effectively implemented the buildingcode in recent years.

It took almost a decade for Dharan to recoverfrom the effect of the devastation caused bythe 1988 earthquake of 6.5 Magnitude. Thequake left behind questions like: what arethe major problems in the currentconstruction practice? How can this poorconstruction practice be changed into a goodconstruction practice?

Further the study carried out under theDharan Earthquake Risk Management Project(DERMP) implemented by NSET outlined theaftermath of the probable earthquake andthe vulnerability scenario of the municipality.It showed that almost 60% of the municipalarea is expected to bear a damage of MMIIX scale and almost 40% of the area isexpected to bear a damage of MMI VIII scale.It also showed that 40% of the total buildingstock could be damaged and severe effectin critical lifeline facilities.

This made Dharan Municipality to come upwith the strategies towards minimizing theexisting risk in the municipality such as;conduct series of trainings and awarenessprograms and Implement building code assoon as possible.

On the occasion of Earthquake AwarenessDay on August 22, 2007 (Bhadra 5, 2064 B.S.),Dharan municipality in the presence ofgovernment officials and all the stakeholdersannounced its plan to implement NBC in allof its building permit process.

The first year of implementation of buildingcode was mainly focused on theimprovement of municipal drawingssubmitted by the client for building permitpurpose. The municipality was mainly focused

on submission of detailing rather thancalculations and main emphasis was given onthe implementation of Category C (MRT) ofthe Code. The second year of implementationof building code was focused on fieldimplementation. The municipalities madeseveral requests and appeals to the peoplefor constructing safer buildings. Several mobileclinics were also conducted.

To speed up the process, municipality broughtabout the Licensing system to the local buildersand masons in the third year of implementationof building code. Receiving a 4 days earthquakeresistant construction training conducted bythe municipality was a pre-requisite for thelocal builders and masons to be qualified forthe professional license issued by themunicipality.

In order to make a check on the system themunicipality enforced punishment system tothose local builders and masons who tend toignore the provisions of building code. Thepunishment system was divided into 4 levels.1. Warning if found ignoring the provisions

of building code deliberately for the firsttime.

2. Suspending for a period of 2 months if thesame person is found ignoring theprovisions of building code deliberatelyfor the second time

3. Blacklisting and making it public if the sameperson is found guilty of ignoring theprovisions of building code deliberatelyfor the third time

4. Delisting from the municipal list andcancelling the license if the same personis found guilty of ignoring the provisionsof building code deliberately for the fourthand final time.

Further to motivate those local builders andmasons who are doing well and following thebuilding code a provision of reward was made.


Building Code Implementation in Dharan MunicipalityTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseRisk Reduction/ Earthquake/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationDharan, Sunsari

126 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

Annually on the occasion of the EarthquakeAwareness Day they were rewarded with acash prize, certificate and their names aremade public.

These efforts led to the establishment ofSeparate unit for Building code andEarthquake Safety within the organizationalframework of the municipality. Drastic positivechange in building drawings has been seenwhich has been replicated in one or the otherway in the field as well. Almost all the newhouses (nearly 75%) have been constructedfollowing most of the criteria of NBC.Involvement of masons and technicians inbuilding construction has increased due totheir involvement in building permit systemand licensing system. Follow-up even afterthe issuing the permit has made the house-owners stick to the drawings to the drawings.Professional Associations of masons,contractors and consultant technicians havebeen formed.Objective/Methodology• To effectively implement the building code

in Dharan municipality• To reduce the earthquake risk in Dharan

MunicipalityBeneficiary PopulationResidents of Dharan Municipality and thesurrounding areaLessons Learnt• MRT should be more elaborated and

extended to other cases• Implementation of Mandatory Rule of

Thumb (MRT) in the least should beconfirmed by Ministry of LocalDevelopment (MoLD) by introducing it inMinimum Conditions PerformanceMeasures (MCPM)

• Support from government and otherbodies is necessary to sustain the program

• Screening and selection should be doneprior giving trainings to local masons

• Promotional scheme to local masons andcontractors should be introduced

• Submission of Design Calculations shouldbe made compulsory for Category BBBuildings

• Submission of Stress and Eccentricitycalculation should be made compulsoryfor Category CC Buildings

• Competency in structural designing forthe consultants should be increased giving

computer aided designing trainings like SAP• Due attention to Retrofitting should be

given along with the new constructionsfor old cities like Dharan

Replication Potential• High Replication Potential• Building Code Implementation in Nepal is

not so easy due to various factors.However, it could be accomplished and aswell replicated if there is a goodcoordination between the implementingagencies and the stakeholders as in thecase of Dharan Municipality.

Implementing AgencyDharan Municipality

| 127

Figure 4.10: ConstructingSill and Lintel bands hasbecome popular in Dharan

Figure 4.9: ConcernedStakeholders jointlyannouncing the building codeimplementation


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionThe flooding of the Koshi River in 2008devastated Sunsari District in Nepaldisplacing 7000 families and creating a greathumanitarian crisis. The fact that so manychildren saw their rights to survival,education and protection compromisedunderscored an important point: to securethe wellbeing of children before, during,and after a disaster, more needs to be donethan simply provide humanitarian aid aftera natural hazard wreaks havoc on acommunity ill-prepared to cope. Plan Nepalassumed the role of one of the leadagencies in the response effort.

Embracing the principles of the HyogoFramework of Action and the NepalGovernment’s Disaster ManagementStrategy, Plan launched its Child-CentredDisaster Risk Reduction (CCDRR) Project in2010 supported by Irish Aid inMahendranagar, Harinagara andBarahachhetra village developmentcommittees (VDCs) in Sunsari District inpartnership with Human Development andEnvironment Protection Forum (HUDEP).The wards and VDCs were selected withinput from the district’s development anddisaster relief committees and with dueconsideration to their exposure andvulnerability to hazards.

With the participation of both child andadult stakeholders, each of the threeschools in the project area—HarinagaraHigher Secondary School in Harinagara,Basanta Ritu Secondary School inMahendranagar, and Kausika LowerSecondary School in Barachhetra—developed a contingency plan afterconducting a Hazard-Vulnerability-and-Capacity Analysis (HVCA) which assessed

potential risks, including damage to schoolinfrastructure, furniture, and learningmaterial and time lost due to closure. Eachplan adhered to the principle of 'DRR throughschools' not 'DRR in schools' so that theycould accommodate a wide variety of issues,all of which put children at their centre.Schools have started to implement thesecontingency plans, renovating toilets andclearing, leveling, and fencing school groundsto reduce the risk of snake bites, accidents,and incursions by domestic and wild animals.

At the community level, the projectconducted initiatives to make sure that theknowledge and skills people acquired duringtrainings could be translated into action andto increase people’s confidence in theircapacity to manage disasters; in addition tothe six street drama performances, therewere three showings of the project’s DRRdocumentary, and six drills in earthquake,fire and flood procedures.

The drills and simulations helped to fill gapsin people’s knowledge about DRR and totranslate skills and knowledge into practiceat the individual, family and communitylevels.

Even though this project was of short natureand a pilot initiative, it has generated manyinteresting findings and learning.

Objective/MethodologyThe objectives of the project were; toincrease the capacity of local governmentsand the Sunsari District Disaster ReliefCommittee (DDRC) to prepare for andrespond to disasters using a CCDRRapproach, and to increase the capacity ofchildren, youth and local communities toprepare for, respond to, and militate againstpotential disasters.


Child Centered Disaster Risk ReductionTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseRisk Reduction/ Multihazard/Predisaster

Geographic LocationSunsari District / July 2010 – October 2011

128 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

Beneficiary PopulationThe project directly benefited 30,892 peopleof 6121 households

Lessons Learnt• Local participation is vital to the success

of the project. This project’s DRR activitieswere conducted in partnership with localpeople, and local ownership was activelyencouraged. Local community memberswere given significant roles such as DRMambassadors, and in general wereinvolved in the entire DRM cycle. Often,they bore full responsibility for the successor failure of activities.

• An important aspect of this project wasto contribute efforts towards bettergovernance systems, both locally andnationally. Local disaster managementcommittees (LDMCs) have beenestablished to institutionalize governmentsystems at local village level. FurthermoreLDMC involvement also increased duringthe implementation phase of the project.

• Investing in building local school capacityshould be prioritised in future projects asschools are excellent conduits forknowledge sharing and dissemination.

• The programme has highlighted a ground-level willingness to address school safety,and it could be effective to implement a'right-to-safe-schools’ campaign,advocating in coordination with localhealth posts and parents teachersassociations for first aid boxes and fireextinguishers in each school, as well asrepairing of unsafe structures andprioritise earthquake resistantconstruction.

• The provision of life-saving equipmentincreases the value of trainings. Providingessential equipment not only increasedparticipants’ interest but also enhancedtheir confidence and self-esteem. Forexample conducting real life search andrescue simulations using life jackets andropes caught the imagination ofparticipants, and encouraged morepeople to get involved in training.

• For scaling-up local capacity on childcentered disaster risk management, theinclusion of vulnerable groups should beprioritized.

Replication PotentialPlan Nepal and its partner believe thatCCDRR approach can be replicated with anyCBDRM initiative. More specially, the CCDRRapproach can be applied under Flagship 1School Safety Program

PublicationA project evaluation and Learning document- available from Plan Nepal

Implementing AgencyPlan Nepal Kathmandu

| 129

Figure 4.12: Studentspermforming Duck, Cover& Hold on

Figure: 4.11: Practice on theflood response technique


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionNepal Red Cross has been working with 25communities in Illam, Jhapa and Panchtardistricts in eastern region of Nepal toreduce the risk of disasters since 2006. Theprogram, which is supported by the BritishRed Cross, trains community members indisaster management. This involves settingup teams to prepare communities fordisasters, such as floods and landslides. Italso includes training people in first aid, aswell as establishing emergency funds forresponding when a disaster strikes. As aresult, all 25 participating communitieshave received relevant training and set upDRR units, implemented mitigationprojects, established emergency funds andtrained DM groups.

The communities the Red Cross is workingwith in eastern Nepal are poor andtherefore particularly vulnerable to anumber of disasters including river floods,fires and snakebites. They have faced thesedisasters for many years as they did nothave any knowledge or skills on disasterpreparedness or disaster mitigation,rescue, relief or even basic pre warningsystems. There was no social cohesion intheir community, which made coordinationvery difficult. The situation changed whenthe community was selected by NRCS forthe Community Based Disaster RiskReduction program. Before the programstarted in the community, the communitypreferred to wait for others to try and solvetheir problems. The arrival of the DRRprogram introduced a different approach

to addressing disaster. The DRR unitencouraged the community to come togatherings and through these meetings,they became aware that if they workedtogether, they could do a lot to solve theirproblems.

As part of the DRR program, the Red Crossalso provided the committees withNRs.15,000 each for increasing the economiccapacity within the community. Theemergency funds were used to provideincome generation loans for people affectedby disasters who lost their means of makinga living.

The loan was very helpful for the needypeople as the bank didn’t lend loan withouta guarantor and others overcharge oninterest. The loan under DRR IncomeGeneration Program was affordable forrepayment and thus was beneficial for thepeople.

The Red Cross further equipped thecommunity with essential skills as they wereprovided with various trainings such as FirstAid and Disaster Management. From thesetrainings, the communities have receivedknowledge and skills on DisasterPreparedness and Mitigation, Basic First Aid,Emergency Coordination andCommunication. The DRR program has thusincreased awareness of the communityabout disasters and social harmony in theircommunity.

Objective• To increase the awareness level of the

community towards DRR


DRR Income Generation Program (IGP)/Community BasedDisaster Risk Reduction ProgramTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseUnderlying Risk Factors/Multihazard/Pre-Post Disaster

Geographic LocationIllam, Jhapa and Panchtar districts

130 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

• To equip the community with essentialskills on DRR

• To support the community to uplift theirlivelihood through various incomegeneration program

Beneficiary PopulationMore than 15,000 Communities of the threedistricts

Replication PotentialThe program has a very high replicationpotential and is being replicated to othercommunities in order to increase thedisaster resilience of the communities

Implementing AgencyNepal Red Cross Society (NRCS), British RedCross

| 131

Figure 4.14: Murdirmaya Tumbapo and her husbandwith their buffalos, which they were able to buywith a helping hand from the DRR program

Figure 4.13: Kitchen Gardening in one of theDRR implemented communities, Panchthar


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail Description

Hospitals would be among the firstinstitutions to be affected after a disaster,natural or human induced. Because of theheavy demand placed on their services at thetime of a disaster, hospitals need to beprepared to handle overwhelming hugeworkloads.

Despite the very critical role in disaster,hospitals in Nepal are not prepared torespond to the predicted disaster situation.Seismic vulnerability assessments of 19 majorhospitals showed 80% of the hospitals will beout of function in a major earthquake. BheriZonal Hospital located in Nepalgunj, Bankedistrict, the largest referral governmenthospital in the mid western region providingservices to more than 100,000 people of themid and far western region of Nepal per year,is amongst those most vulnerable toearthquakes. The cause of non-functionalityof the hospital is not only attributable tostructural components, but also non-

structural andfunctionalcomponents.Realizing this, acomprehensiveemergencyresponse plan of thehospital wasdeveloped, followedby implementationof key activitiesunder the projectDeveloping andImplementingDisasterPreparedness Plan inBheri Zonal Hospital.The project broadlycovered and focused

on awareness and capacity building in makingthe hospital safer and enabling it to cope withthe pending disaster.

The project conducted a detail vulnerabilityassessment of structural and non-structuralsafety of Bheri Zonal Hospital in early 2010.The project was implemented by NSET withfunding support from European Commission’sHumanitarian Aid Department (ECHO)through Action-Aid Nepal (AAN) underDIPECHO V together with Bheri Zonal Hospital(BZH). Based on the assessment report,preparation of comprehensive emergencyresponse plan of the hospital andimplementation of key activities to supportthe plan together with non-structuralmitigations was chosen by the hospitalmanagement in consultation with Action Aidand NSET. With support from HandicapInternational (HI), the issues of accessibilitywere also included while preparing theemergency response plan as well as duringimplementation of activities to support theplan as far as possible.

Towards making the Bheri Zonal Hospitalprepared for emergencies various activitieswere implemented such as; Assessment forfunctionality of the hospital (Structural, Non-Structural and Functional) was carried out,orientation and interaction program wasorganized on disaster preparedness planning, Emergency Response Plan with Spatial Mapwas prepared and as suggested by theassessment report, non-structural mitigationmeasures were also carried out in the hospital.

In addition, works listed as Priority I such asputting sirens in four key locations aroundthe hospital complex, construction of twoemergency exit gates, two channel gates toguide the patient flow, clearing and planting


Developing and Implementing Emergency Response Plan ofa Bheri Zonal Hospital in NepalTheme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseRisk Reduction/Earthquake/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationBanke district

132|

Figure 4.15: Spatial Plan forEmergency Response Scenario-1, Bheri Zonal Hospital

Ch

ap

ter 4

of grass in the garden area to maintain as alawn for allocating an overflow of patients,making and fixing of sign boards for quartersand the main entrance gates of the hospital,were carried out.

For Strengthening of critical life line facilities,as suggested by the vulnerability assessment,lifeline facilities including the generator andpump house, were strengthened bydemolishing the existing one andreconstructing the housing and providingshelter for the generator. They wereconstructed incorporating earthquakeresistant elements, to ensure they remainfunctional during post-disaster.

Development of hospital disaster responseplan is not an end in itself and it is imperativeto test the plan, therefore orientation trainingand Hospital Disaster Preparedness Drillprogram was developed as a continuing effortto help Bheri Zonal Hospital undertakeeffective and efficient drills specifically foremergency preparedness and response.

Objective/Methodology

The overall goal of the project was tostrengthen the mass casualty managementsystem in BZH to ensure the prompt andsufficient performance of the hospital after adisaster building an effective, efficient andinclusive response mechanism

Methodology

The various methodologies carried out in BZHto improve its functionality during a disaster,are as follows;Coordination and Interactions with VariousStakeholdersReference of Relevant DocumentsApplication of Hospital Incident CommandSystem (HICS)

Beneficiary Population

More than 100,000 people of the Mid and FarWestern Region of Nepal

Lessons LearntPlanning is possible, even in busy operatinghospitalInvolvement of Hospital Staff in Planning andImplementation was effectiveApplication of new concept is challenging andrequires patience

Integration with other programs was CosteffectiveRegular practice of Triage is importantContinuous training for the staff neededLinkage of Disaster Store with Emergency Storeis necessaryMass Casualty Management is not all technicalDrill was a learning experience for nursingstudentsDrill should to be conducted on regular basisReplication Potential

This was a pilot project primarily developed todesign and build a replicable model that canbe used in future hospital safety-relatedprograms, whilst also demonstrating andadvocating for a higher level of hospital safetyin the country as per the first Flagship Program(a consortium developed by the donors andendorsed by GON for Disaster RiskManagement in Nepal).

As gleaned from the works of BZH and thelessons learnt, all approaches andmethodologies were found to be highlyeffective and can be replicated with project-specific alterations in other health institutionsin Nepal in future

Implementing Agency

Action-Aid Nepal (AAN) and Bheri ZonalHospital (BZH), under the DIPECHO V, NationalSociety for Earthquake Technology-Nepal(NSET), Handicap International (HI).

Figure 4.16: NonstructuralMitigation work at thehospital

| 133


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionDespite the high risk of earthquakes, schoolconstruction in Nepal has largely ignoredissues of structural safety and they are builtvery informally just like common residentialbuildings. Over 66 percent of the valley’spublic schools are likely to collapse if theywere to experience intensity IX shaking.Estimated casualty figures for a scenarioearthquake of MMI IX shaking during schoolhours in Kathmandu Valley are: 29,000 deaths(students, teachers and administrative staff-12%), 43,000 seriously injured (18%), totalcollapse of school buildings (66%), partialcollapse (11%), and 23% of the buildings willsuffer from minor to moderate damage.The findings led NSET to advocate for SchoolEarthquake Safety Program (SESP) in Nepal,which has been very successful in terms ofdeveloping appropriate technicalmethodologies and a procedure forcommunity-based implementation. The efforthas demonstrated technical, economical,political and socio-cultural feasibilities ofenhancing earthquake performance of about300 public schools in Nepal located withinthe Kathmandu Valley and in districts located

at variousphysiographicregions of Nepalfrom the highHimalayansettlements to theplains of Terai in thesouth. However,there are more than32,000 public andprivate schools inNepal, and thechallenge is to scaleup the process ofenhancingearthquake safety ofschools for whichinstitutionalizationof the concept of

SESP is necessary.NSET pioneered the School Earthquake SafetyProgram (SESP) in 1997 when it was includedas a direct component of Kathmandu ValleyEarthquake Risk Management Program(KVERMP) with the initiative of makingschools safer against earthquakes that notonly protects school children, but educatescommunities to protect themselvesSchools are source of education (awareness)and also a tool to make people aware aboutsafety from hazards. Students, teachers,parents and the members of the managementcommittee are the active agents who helpwiden the outreach of the earthquake safetymeasures. The earthquake resistant schoolbuilding stands there as stimulator to changethe current construction practice. Schoolstudents are good conveyers of informationfrom school to individual households. In thissense, school could be considered as ignitionpoint to change traditional practices toseismically safer construction practice ofsociety. Apart from its educational usage,schools are also used as community meetingplaces and emergency shelters duringdisasters. The importance of making schoolbuildings earthquake resistant is obvious. Inthe early years SESP was limited to seismicretrofit design and involvement of theconcerned communities in theimplementation of the school building seismicreconstruction or seismic strengthening.Later, SESP gradually developed into a socialmovement as the centre of earthquake riskmanagement.In the School Earthquake Safety Program,NSET encourages the local community toestablish a School Earthquake SafetyCommittee (SESC), with several sub-committees, at each SESP site. Because ofthe involvement of a very wide section ofcommunities and institutions, SESP hasproven to be a strong awareness raisingactivity.The School Earthquake Safety Program


School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP)Theme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseDisaster Preparedness/Multi-hazards/Preparedness

Geographic LocationThroughout Nepal

134 |

Figure 4.17: Students observingthe retrofitting work in one ofthe selected school

Ch

ap

ter 4

consists of three closely inter-knit sub-components, namely, (1) Training of masons,(2) Training of teachers, parents and studentson earthquake preparedness and preparednessplanning, and (3) seismic retrofit or earthquake-resistant reconstruction of public schoolbuildings. NSET carries out survey, design andassists the construction committee toimplement the construction. Usually, the localmasons are engaged in the construction;contractors are avoided.NSET also provides construction supervision.During construction, the masons andtechnicians are provided with the Hands-ontraining on earthquake resistant construction.Further the school teachers, students and thesurrounding community are oriented onearthquake safety. Emergency Response Planof the school is developed including training ofteachers, parents, children and the communityfor the drill to be performed based on the plan.Thus the program has been very successful inpromoting community participation in allcomponents of program activities and to raiseearthquake awareness significantly.Objective/MethodologyThe main goal of the project is to graduallyensure that school children in seismic regionsgo to earthquake-safe schools and that localcommunities build their capacities to cope withearthquake disasters. To achieve the goal, theSESP program has the following principalobjectives:• To assess the structural and non structural

vulnerability of public school buildings• To identify and implement measures to

reduce the identified vulnerabilities• To raise awareness of earthquake risks and

preparedness• Help schools develop and implement

School Earthquake Preparedness PlanBeneficiary PopulationStudents, teachers and the surroundingcommunity of the selected schoolsLessons Learnt• Schools are the best point of entry for

propagating disaster risk reduction atcommunity level

• School Earthquake Safety Program is acomplete program

• SESP is a platform to produce/developappropriate technology

• Management model in SESP can be used inany community development work as amodel for community- based initiatives

• Transparency plays vital role in community-based programs

• Best indicator of success of technologytransfer is replication of the process.

• Training program for mason is an essentialpart for a successful School EarthquakeSafety Program

• Retrofitting is an affordable solution forNepalese Schools

Replication PotentialSchool Earthquake Safety Program is acomplete program to make schools safer andalso reach communities with the message ofearthquake safety promotion. SESPapproaches are well established andapproved. Despite concept being widelyaccepted and even replicated at various levels,there is a huge potential to scale up the effortwith extensive replication so as to coverthousands of schools in Nepal and the region.Additionally, the masons trained during theprogram are now spreading the technologyof earthquake-resistant construction in theircommunities and replicating the technologywhile constructing new buildings. They arealso training other masons. Thus the processof replication (replicating the constructionmethods employed in school building toconstruct their private houses) would multiplyin future to set a new technological culture inconstruction.PublicationHand-Book for Seismic Resistant Constructionand Retrofitting of School Buildings in NepalTraining Manual for School Based EarthquakePreparedness ProgramImplementing AgencyNational Society for Earthquake Technology- Nepal (NSET) in partnership with manyAgencies/ Organizations

Figure 4.18: Studentsparticipating in the earthquakedrill program

| 135


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionSchools in Nepal and the region are highlyvulnerable to different kinds of disasters.Disaster awareness and preparedness at theschools is very low. There is urgent need ofdisaster preparedness in vulnerable schools inNepal. Realizing this need, Nepal Red CrossSociety (NRCS) and NSET with the fundingsupport from American Red Cross (ARC)implemented the program “DisasterPreparedness for Safer Schools in Nepal(DPSS)” to increase disaster awareness andimprove the disaster safety of schools andcommunities through awareness, training andcapacity building activities. The program wasimplemented in 50 schools from two districts( Bhaktapur and Nuwakot) of Nepal during theperiod of Nov 2009 to Oct 2010. DPSS is furtherenvisioned as a regional program to beimplemented in few disaster prone countriesof Asia on the basis of experiences & lessonslearnt during first phase.The program included development andadaptation of training curricula on schoolbased disaster preparedness, delivery oftraining courses, preparation andimplementation of school earthquakepreparedness plans, disaster preparednessdrills, community awareness andestablishment of links between city/communitypreparedness plan and school preparednessplan. Various activities such as 5-day courseon School Based Disaster PreparednessTraining of Trainers (SBDPTOT), 3-day courseon Basic Disaster Management Training(BDMT), 4-day course on Basic First AidTraining (FA), 4-day course on -Light Searchand Rescue Training (LSAR) and 3-day courseon Disaster PreparednessPlanning/Vulnerability & Capacity AssessmentTraining (DPP/VCA) were conducted. Also,various activities were implemented onDisaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness suchas Vulnerability and Risk Assessment,

Formation of Student Disaster Safety Clubs,Strengthening of Junior/Youth Red Cross(J/YRC), Preparation and implemention ofSchool Disaster Preparedness and ResponsePlan, Support for Students’ Summits indistricts, School Disaster Preparedness Drill,in 20 Schools, Developing Handbook on SchoolDisaster Preparedness, and etc.Secondly, with the objective to increasedisaster awareness of communities, variousAwareness Campaigns were carried on, likethe orientation sessions to parents,community people and the leaders onconcepts of hazards, disasters, preparednessand mitigation; Disaster Safety Rallies and alsoproduction and dissemination of relevantpublications.Third area of activities under this programfocused on assisting institutionalization ofdisaster safety concepts through Involvementof key government and non-governmentinstitutions of education sector in theprogram; Program Advisory Committee atCentral Level; District and local levelstakeholder meetings; Preparation of draftNational Strategy for institutionalization ofDisaster Preparedness in Schools as well asDissemination and Advocacy.A total of 8,402 people got benefitted throughnumbers of disaster preparedness and riskreduction activities implemented in the DPSSprogram. 93 trainings on DisasterPreparedness and Disaster Risk Reductionwere conducted and 20 communities and 50schools of the program district were benefitedthrough risk reduction and preparednessactivities. As an outcome of the trainingactivities five different training curricula ondisaster preparedness was developed.Now the program partners are implementingsecond phase of the program “DPSS2” in boththe districts Nuwakot & Bhaktapur and alsoexpanding to Rasuwa district.


Disaster Preparedness for Safer Schools (DPSS)Theme/Disaster/Disaster PhasePreparedness/Earthquake-Multi-hazard / Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationNuwakot, Bhaktapur

136|

Ch

ap

ter 4

Objective• Improve disaster safety of public schools

through increased hazard awareness;improved disaster management skillsamong school children, teachers andparents; and by establishing properdisaster preparedness and responsesystems

• Increase disaster awareness ofcommunities through disaster awarenessand training programs and campaignsusing schools as entry point

• Assist to institutionalize disaster safetyconcepts into regular education systemby developing and assisting inimplementation of national strategies forwide-spread application of concepts,approaches and methodologies toenhance disaster safety of entireeducation system throughout the country.

Beneficiary PopulationThe communities, students, teachers and RedCross volunteers of the program areaLessons Leant• Mobilization of JYRC, Red Cross Volunteer

seems very effective to aware community• JYRC, School teacher and Management

committee of Schools can take lead roleto implement the preparedness activity

• Involvement of security forces help tomake smooth coordination withcommunity

• Some more intervention required toinvolve community for preparednessactivity

• Capacity building activities required forlocal government staff for sustainabilityof program

• Involvement of NSET reinforced thesmooth implementation procedure andbuilt up the technical capacity of NRCS

Replication PotentialWide incorporation of local stakeholder,government partners during implementationof the initiation demonstrated the model asa sustainable and replicable one to otherschools and community. Further high level ofcommunity acceptance of the conductedactivities has showed that it has a highreplication potential.Second phase of the program “DPSS2” nowbeing implemented in 3 districts is an example

Figure 4.19: School EmergencyEvacuation Plan painted onwalls of school building

Figure 4.20: Studentsdemonstrating and practicingDuck Cover and Hold duringschool earthquake drill

| 137

of its continuation and replicability.PublicationCurricula for - School Based DisasterPreparedness ToT (SBDToT, 5 Days),Basic Disaster Management training (BDMT,3 Days)Light Search and Rescue Training (LSAR, 4Days),Vulnerability Capacity Assessment/ DisasterPreparedness Plan training (VCA/DP, 3 Days),Program Operation Guidelines for DPSSImplementing AgencyNepal Red Cross Society (NRCS), NationalSociety for Earthquake Technology (NSET),American Red Cross (ARC)


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionRealizing that neighborhoods and communitiesare the first ones to help each other during anymajor disaster situation, NSET has implementedcommunity based earthquake/disaster riskmanagement programs in differentcommunities of Nepal. Community BasedDisaster Risk Management in Nepal (CBDRM-N) is one of those interventions. With thefunding support from Lutheran World Relief(LWR), NSET implemented program in AlapotVillage Development Committee, Ward No.12of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City (LSMC12) andWard No.18 of Kathmandu Metropolitan City(KMC18) during 2010-2011.The program implementation begun with thenumber of multi-stakeholders meetings inprogram communities separately to formulateWard/VDC level Disaster Risk ManagementCommittees (DMC). The concept was to pilotinstitutionalization of DRM efforts at thelowermost administrative units in line withLocal Self-Governance Act (LSGA) 1999 and asenvisioned in National Strategy for DisasterRisk Management (NSDRM)-2009. With theparticipation of multiple sectors, DMC wasformed in each of the three programcommunities to be led by Head of Ward or VDC.The program was initiated with a 5-day trainingprogram on Community Based Disaster RiskManagement conducted for therepresentatives of the three DisasterManagement Committees (DMC) and theconcerned authorities. The idea was to impartknowledge and skills in community frontiersand also enhance quality of DRM activities inthe community to carry on. The trained personsare now capable of planning and implementingCommunity Based Disaster Risk Managementinitiatives.Disaster Risk Management Committees (DMCs)planned for series of community levelorientation programs to raise the publicawareness on DRR/DRM.

The three DMCs with technical assistance fromNSET, organized a 3 day training program onParticipatory Hazard, Risk, Vulnerability andCapacity Assessment (PHRVCA) for 30 localvolunteers in each of the programcommunities. The trained volunteers alongwith other members of the community carriedout the participatory Hazard, Risk, Vulnerabilityand Capacity Assessment of their locality. Onthat basis, the Disaster Risk ManagementMaster Plan has been developed for each Wardor VDC. The prepared master plan was sharedand endorsed by the community stakeholdersin presence of the local government officials.Pilot activities were implemented in schoolsand health centers. An orientation programon DRR was conducted in each selected schooland the School Based Community DisasterPreparedness Plan was prepared. In addition,Disaster Response Plan was developed in eachprogram community. Non structuralvulnerability reduction works were carried outin the selected schools and primary healthcenters.Further, to upgrade the skill of the practicingmasons of their community a five day trainingprogram for masons on Earthquake ResistantConstruction Technology was organized byeach DMCs.In this program concept, all the activities havebeen designed so as to enhance disasterresiliency through local initiatives on rightbased approach. Also, stress is on networkingamong CBOs and other civil societyorganizations on policy development andsharing best practices in disaster riskmanagement framework.The concerned authority has endorsed theDMCs as an entity within formal structure ofthe Metropolitan City and Village DevelopmentCommittees.


Community Based Disaster Risk Management in Nepal(CBDRM-N)Theme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseDisaster Preparedness/Multi-hazards/Preparedness

Geographic LocationKathmandu, Lalitpur, Alapot VDC

138|

Ch

ap

ter 4

Objectives• Enhance community capacities in

mainstreaming community based disasterrisk management

• Build and facilitate school based disastermanagement plan in targeted schools whichinterconnect with nearby community/CBOsand health institutions

• Establish 3 local health institution baseddisaster management plan as hubs foremergency response and emergency healthpreparedness at the local level

• Enhance the disaster safety of thecommunity by implementing structural andnon-structural vulnerability reductionactivities in all 3 communities

• Enhance skill on right based approach andthe networking among CBOs, and other civilsociety organizations on policydevelopment and best practices sharing indisaster risk management framework

• Institutionalize the Disaster RiskManagement (DRM) initiative at 3 localgovernment and social institutions byprepositioning of emergency rescuesupplies

Beneficiary PopulationCommunities of KMC Ward No 18, LSMC WardNo 12 and Alapot VDCMore than 3,500 persons actively participatedin the CBDRM-N project activities and gaineddirect benefit with enhanced access toknowledge, skill and hands on experience.

Lessons learnt• Continuous mass awareness campaign is

very much essential• Explaining complex concepts of disaster

risk reduction in a simple language pays• Combination of Local wisdom and modern

knowledge in Disaster Risk Management isa must for Effective Risk Assessment andReduction

• Transparency brings interest, involvementand ownership

• Community Based Disaster Risk ReductionInitiatives should be “Community Paced”

• Developing and improving risk assessmenttools are very important

Replication PotentialThe methodology is cost-efficient and replicable.

The procedures developed by NSET has beenadapted and used by other organizationsworking in disaster risk reduction. It is verymuch clear that all the 4000 VillageDevelopment Committees should be facilitatedto form Village level Disaster Risk ManagementCommittees and implement the Disaster RiskReduction Activities in each village to makethe Nepali community resilient to disasters.Source / PublicationReports by NSETImplementing AgencyNational Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), Lutheran World Relief (LWR)

| 139

Figure 4.22: Participantsperforming practical exerciseduring the LSAR training

Figure 4.21: Communitiesattending orientation lectureon earthquake safety


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionIn the previous years, DRR efforts did notoccur at the local level; decisions were madehigher up and were imposed on localcommunities, ignoring the fact that thesedecisions might be inappropriate for the localcontext. The misconception that dealing withdisaster is the duty of the government andthat locals can do nothing on their own tomanage disaster prevailed, because therewere no organized DMCs, discussions aboutdisaster risks and ways to cope with themwere limited.The Project Disaster Risk Reduction throughSchools (DRRSP) implemented by Action AidNepal facilitated PVAs (ParticipatoryVulnerability Assessment) and interactions atthe school and community level revealed thatthere were many gaps in the DRR knowledgeand practices of local people. One of thosegaps was the lack of an institution responsiblefor disaster-related activities. To address thisgap, socially inclusive Disaster ManagementCommittees (DMCs) were formed at theschool and community levels in the projectimplemented districts of Banke, Makwanpur,Rasuwa and Kathmandu. DMC memberslearned many life-saving skills throughtrainings in first aid, search and rescue, firefighting and other issues in an effort to buildtheir capacities to respond to disaster.Emphasis was given to the institutionaldevelopment of these DMCs, grooming themto assume the role of ‘risk minimisers’. Underthe leadership of DMCs, communities draftedcommunity-based disaster preparedness andcontingency plans in order to promote forsustainable DRR at the local level.Once local-level DMCs had been establishedand strengthened, it was easy for variousdisaster actors to realize their respective roles

and responsibilities. The fact that DMCs weresocially inclusive helped to ensure the equalparticipation of men, women and marginalizedgroups in reducing the risks of hazards,eliminating social vulnerability and buildingdisaster-resilient communities. Women, whowere once largely absent from developmentendeavors, are now in the forefront and arewell represented in decision-making process.The establishment of DMCs has made it easierto provide services to those groups of affectedpeople who were previously left unaidedduring disasters. DMCs also make communitiesmore responsive because with thetransparency of their actions they establishupstream and downstream linkages and,increase the willingness of every family toparticipate in DRR. Because DMCs have madelocal-level resource mobilization possible,communities can now respond to disaster risksimmediately. DMCs mobilize local resourcesand create awareness about people’s abilityto act on their own, thereby empoweringthem. Since it is almost impossible to respondeffectively without funds, all the DMCs haveestablished emergency funds which can bedrawn on in times of need to provideimmediate relief before external supportarrives. Not only have DMCs promoted local-level DRR, but they have also empoweredcommunities. Getting involved with a DMChelps people overcome their shyness and lackof confidence. Communities with DMCs havea positive self-image and are able to projectthat image publicly. For example, under theleadership of its DMC, Bageshwori VDC, Banke,constructed a safe shelter which it rents outto others to conduct meetings and otherprogrammes. The income is deposited in thecommunity’s emergency fund.DMCs provide good coordination, whether ofresources or ideas and therefore maximize a


Local level Disaster Management Committees – Effective Vehiclesfor reducing disaster risk (Community Based Disaster RiskManagement)

Theme/Disaster/Disaster PhasePreparedness/Multihazard/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationBanke, Makwanpur,Rasuwa and Kathmandu

140 |

Ch

ap

ter 4

community’s ability to respond to disastersand to reduce disaster risks. They coordinateamong governmental agencies, NGOs, SchoolManagement Committees (SMCs), Communityleaders and Parent Teacher Association (PTAs)to insure that DRR activities are collectiveefforts. They are also able to secure andmobilize external support easily. For example,the DMC in Matehiya, Banke, working incoordination with the Red Cross, MatehiyaVDC, Banke DDC, the District Disaster ReliefCommittee, and BEE Group, was able to raiseNRs. 260,000 for 25 fire-affected families. ThisDMC is also linked with the district levelNetwork for Disaster Affected People. DMCshave also served as a platform to promoteinteractions and discussions among students,teachers and guardians about new DRR issuesas they arise and to share the good practicesadopted by communities other than the sixproject communities with a view towardsreplicating them. DMCs also preparecontingency plans for disaster preparedness,and their knowledge about resourcegeneration is strong.

Objective/Methodology• To promote disaster resilient communities• Enhancing community capacities in

mainstreaming community based disasterrisk management

Beneficiary PopulationCommunities of Banke, Makwanpur,Rasuwaand Kathmandu

Lessons Learnt• DMCs ensure that all local-level

stakeholders will be represented in all DRRendeavors as they are socially inclusive

• As DMCs promote accountability amongstakeholders, they increase theeffectiveness of DRR efforts

• Since the plans and programs of DMCs aretransparent, they find it easy to generateresources both internally and externally,even small contributions can helpcommunities respond to disastersimmediately after they occur

• DMCs should be further equipped with theskills and knowledge they need to mobilizeresources for DRR

• DMCs advocate and lobby in favor of thedisaster affected, particularly the mostvulnerable among them

• DMCs also ensure that decision-making isbased on the will of all stakeholders andpromote a culture of harmony and unitywhich fosters the collective andcomprehensive handling of disaster risks

Replication PotentialDifferent hazards require differentinterventions, but an integrated, multi-stakeholder approach is the basis of thisinitiative, and this can be successfully appliedin different communities and contexts. As such,it can be replicated in other hazard prone areasand at national level. This requires raisedawareness and understanding of disaster riskreduction among political parties andgovernment, and government officials workingin different line offices.Implementing AgencyAction Aid Nepal/ DIPECHO

Figure 4.23: DMC Meeting

Figure 4.24: DMC memberorienting the community

| 141


Ch

ap

ter

4

Good Practice Detail DescriptionNepal is prone to a number of disasters, butthe most frequent and certain to occur isflood and landslides during the monsooncausing heavy loss every year. Such disastersresults not only in loss of life but also retardsthe national development process. Both thegovernment and non government sectorsin Nepal are working jointly and incollaboration to reduce the risk of disastersand provide effective response.

Pre-Monsoon Workshops, organized eachyear in Nepal to measure the level ofpreparedness and also make organizationsprepared for response, is one good exampleof DRR in Nepal which has a national impact.Nepal Center for Disaster Management(NCDM) with the support from I/NGOs andUN Agencies initiated to organize Pre-Monsoon Workshop in 2002 and continuedtill 2006. From 2007, DPNet-Nepal andNCDM are jointly organizing the workshop.Following the workshop at national level,preparedness workshops are also beingorganized in districts and also in somecommunities.

These workshops have been instrumentalfor effective and coordinated responseduring the disaster. Some part of plain landarea in tarai is inundated every year duringthe rainy season in Nepal putting the lifeand livelihoods of poor and vulnerablecommunities living near the river banks atstake. This kind of workshops has been ableto map the resources and also prepareinformal contingencies for the probableresponse. It is equally helpful to share the

responsibilities and make a coordinatedplan in case of disaster.

The Pre-Monsoon Workshops at Central andDistrict Level in 2008 had positive impactsduring response in major floods-Koshi Floodand Western Nepal Flood in 2008. Thepreparedness planning enhanced thecoordination, communication andcollaboration among government institutes,local bodies and agencies. The Pre-MonsoonWorkshops were organized at Central Leveland at District Level in 46 districts by Co-coordinating with District Disaster ReliefCommittee (DDRC). The workshop alsoadopted Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA)tools, endorsed draft National StandardResponse Kits (food, Hygiene, shelter andeducation), formed Community DisasterTesponse Team and Cluster wise PreDisaster Task Force in some districts andcommunities along with mapping ofresources and capacity of institutions.

The wide appreciated coordinated responseduring the Koshi Flood in 2008, August canbe attributed as an outcome of regular premonsoon workshop at national level andlikewise preparation in district level. Thoughthe national as well as local preparation wasfor regular types of flood and there was nocontingency scenarios set in a scale floodoccurred in Koshi areas, the responseremained quite effective. DDRC took thelead for response coordination and UNOCHA facilitated response and other reliefagencies supported the government inresponse. Cluster approach, spontaneouslystarted to work in place, which made IASCto approve cluster approach at national


Pre-Monsoon Workshops: Effective Tool to Enhance National as wellas Local Preparedness Planning for Flood Response

Theme/Disaster/Disaster PhaseDisaster Preparedness/Flood/Pre-disaster

Geographic LocationThroughout Nepal

142|

Ch

ap

ter 4

level. The district level preparednessplanning in leadership of DDRC ensured thelead role of local government during theresponse also. Integrated Initial RapidAssessment Tools were used within first 48hrs and later on Cluster specificsurvey/assessment has been conducted todesign the Cluster response plan. Veryenthusiastically, government took the leadrole for each cluster. Even some of thedepartments who are not the member ofDDRC, like department of education leadthe education cluster. The response, notonly from the eye of outsiders, also in a viewof the affected communities was very good.These increased coordination andpredictable response in such crisis in Nepal,in general is a result of continuous effort ofstakeholders for better cooperation andcollaboration for DRR in Nepal and theworkshops especially organized for thispurpose like pre monsoon workshops areplaying a vital role to boost the coordinationand collaboration.

Objective/MethodologyTo share lessons learned from last year’sdisaster response activities andpreparedness and make an effective districtlevel plans for the better response andpreparedness activities for the comingyear’s monsoon disaster

Beneficiary PopulationCommunities of the flood prone area

Any LessonThe preparation of common tools like MultiCluster Initial Assessment Tools andGuidelines and acceptance of the toolsthrough this kind of workshops among thestakeholders will help for better informationand data management for effective andefficient response in future disasters.

Replication PotentialThese workshops have been instrumentalfor effective and coordinated responseduring the disaster. Such practice needs tobe replicated in order to boost the

coordination and collaboration among thevarious DRR stakeholders. Further theGovernment of Nepal has already endorsedthe ‘Guidance Note for District DisasterPreparedness Planning Workshops.

PublicationGuidance Note for District DisasterPreparedness Planning Workshops

Implementing Agency

Ministry of Home Affairs/GON, NCDM,DPNet-Nepal

Figure 4.26: Participant of theworkshop

Figure 4.25: Distiguishedguests at the dias during theworkshop

| 143

A drill simulation done in city core-area of KathmanduPhoto Courtesy: DPNet-Nepal


CHAPTER 5: THEMATICDISCUSSION ON ECONOMICS

OF DISASTERS

| 145


Flood Risk Reduction Activity in NawalparasiPhoto Courtesy: Practical Action

Ch

ap

ter 5

Chapter 5

Thematic Discussion on Economics of Disasters

| 147

BackgroundFrequently occurring small, medium andlarge disaster events in Nepal cause casualtyof thousands of human lives and destructionof physical assets worth hundreds of millionsof rupees every year. In addition, indirectsocio-economic impacts due to humancasualties and damages of infrastructuresare also enormous. This has eventuallycaused direct negative impact ondevelopment and economy of the country.A significant proportion of GDP is alsolost every year due to natural disasters.

The several socio-economic impacts ofdisasters can be categorized as direct losses,indirect losses and secondary effects.• Direct losses are the physical damage to

capital assets, including buildings,infrastructure, industrial plants, standingcrops, grain stores, livestock and socialinfrastructure, as well as loss of humanlife and injury and estimated economicloss.

• Indirect effects relate to disruptions tothe flow of goods and services stemmingfrom these direct losses, including, forinstance, reduced output, loss of earningsand job losses.

• Secondary effects concern both theshort- and long-term broader socio-economic impacts of a disaster, such asthose on GDP growth, fiscal andmonetary performance, the balance ofpayments, foreign reserves, indebtednessand the scale and incidence of poverty.

The direct loss caused by the disasters isobvious and easy to determine. However,the direct losses can lead to a wide array ofindirect and secondary effects which areoften intermingled and dare difficult todetermine. For instance, crop losses canresult in higher commercial and/or food aid

import requirements, with potentialimplications for the balance of paymentsand levels of official foreign reserves. Pricesmay be forced up, particularly where foodstaple shortages are exacerbated bydisruptions to the transport network, in turnfuelling inflation and affecting poorhouseholds disproportionately.

The following sections of this chapterdiscuss on economic impacts of disasterswhich had gone through over the years ingeneral.

Damage and LossesHuman LivesThe impact of disasters on human livesvaries year-by-year. Based on the disasterdata compiled by MoHA and DWIDP, anaverage of 797 people killed annually dueto disasters during 1983-2010 (MoHA 2004,DWIDP, 2010) (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1).A total of 22,302 people were killed by alltypes of disasters. Significant proportion ofhuman casualty (around 52%) is due toepidemics. Landslides and floods are othermajor contributors in the total human loss.The loss of lives due to landslides and floodsalone was 279 per year for the same period.

Another disaster database, the DesInventarDatabase compiled by NSET which capturedthe data related to disasters since 1971 showseven more number of deaths during theperiod (Table 5.2). The human death duringthe period of 40 years (1971-2010) is 30,982which make an annual average death of 775.From this data also, it can be seen that thesignificant proportion of death (more than52%) is caused by epidemics. Other majorcauses of human casualty are floods andlandslides (combined 27%). The low


Ch

ap

ter

5

148 |

Table 5.1: Loss of lives due to various disasters in Nepal from 1983 to 2010

WindstormYear Flood & Fire Epidemics Hailstorm & Earthquake Avalanche Stampede Total

Landslides Thunderbolts

1983 293 69 217 0 0 0 0 579

1984 363 57 521 0 0 0 0 941

1985 420 52 915 0 0 0 0 1387

1986 315 96 1101 0 0 0 0 1512

1987 391 62 426 2 0 0 0 881

1988 328 23 427 0 721 14 71 1584

1989 680 109 879 28 0 20 0 1716

1990 307 46 503 57 0 0 0 913

1991 93 90 725 63 0 0 0 971

1992 71 97 128 20 2 0 0 318

1993 1336 43 100 45 0 0 0 1524

1994 49 43 626 47 0 0 0 765

1995 203 73 520 34 0 43 0 873

1996 258 61 494 75 3 4 0 895

1997 83 65 951 49 0 12 0 1160

1998 273 54 840 23 0 0 0 1190

1999 193 39 1207 22 0 5 0 1466

2000 173 37 141 26 0 0 0 377

2001 196 26 154 38 1 0 0 415

2002 441 11 0 6 0 0 0 458

2003 232 16 0 62 0 0 0 310

2004 131 10 41 10 0 0 0 192

2005 141 28 34 18 0 21 0 242

2006 114 3 0 15 - - - 132

2007 216 9 3 40 - 6 - 274

2008 134 11 10 16 - 0 - 171

2009 135 35 462 7 - 2 - 641

2010 240 69 36 70 - - - 415

Total 7,809 1,334 11,461 773 727 127 71 22,302

Average of 28 years 797

Source: MoHA, 2004; DWIDP 2010

Ch

ap

ter 5

| 149

proportion of human casualty by earthquake(around 3%) is due to the fact that duringthis period, no large earthquake occurred;only one major event of 1988 occurred. Thesegregated data for period 1983-2010 fromDesInventar database shows more averageannual casualty rate of 950 deaths per year(Table 5.3).

In terms of affected population, flood eventsare the major contributor (Table 5.2). Around62% of the total disaster affected populationis due to floods. Floods affect annuallyaround 125 thousand people. Annually,around 150,000 - 200,000 people are affecteddue to different disasters (Table 5.2 and 5.3). Figure 5.1: Percentage of loss of life due to

various types of disasters in Nepal during1983-2010Source: MoHA 2004, DWIDP 2010

Other Fire andYear Flood Landslide Hydro- forest fires Epidemics Earthquakes Others Total

metrological

1971 34 68 37 4 151 17 3111972 5 94 21 6 42 5 1731973 23 23 22 16 92 38 2141974 71 24 14 13 383 - 2 5071975 15 19 32 11 158 28 2631976 - 149 15 93 41 6 3041977 17 57 13 13 47 15 1621978 10 39 37 11 349 25 4711979 15 29 10 52 522 12 6401980 8 85 21 13 144 125 27 4231981 130 62 7 11 34 14 2581982 3 206 8 12 454 - 6831983 72 106 15 7 282 10 4921984 167 89 15 23 775 22 1,0911985 35 25 4 14 104 47 2291986 8 86 12 17 160 6 2891987 38 30 5 7 25 17 1221988 20 165 10 10 266 744 112 1,3271989 31 130 33 26 104 28 3521990 52 35 22 9 388 6 5121991 45 27 46 23 948 8 1,0971992 2 31 23 51 891 - 9981993 1,169 256 70 25 253 1 38 1,812

Table 5.2: Human death due to disasters during 1971-2010


Ch

ap

ter

5

150 |

Table 5.3: Summary of effects on human lives due to disasters during 1971-2010

Hazard Deaths Missing Injuries Affected

Flood 3,899 663 461 3,665,104

Landslide 4,327 605 1,446 555,607

Other Hydro-metrological 2,559 887 3,514 910,073

Fire and forest fires 1,355 596 1,135 268,342

Epidemics 16,532 - 43,076 513,017

Earthquakes 873 - 6,840 4,539

Others 1,437 659 755 15,564

Total 30,982 3,410 57,227 5,932,246

Average of 40 years 775 85 1430 148,300

Other Fire andYear Flood Landslide Hydro- forest fires Epidemics Earthquakes Others Total

metrological

1994 7 57 58 52 985 - 16 1,1751995 24 190 72 101 766 - 5 1,1581996 73 215 58 117 665 19 1,1471997 54 40 100 78 1,058 - 1 1,3311998 131 197 51 20 748 7 1,1541999 139 131 47 39 1,044 9 1,4092000 79 118 50 40 403 18 7082001 49 270 90 57 1,400 2 34 1,9022002 158 455 38 14 223 11 8992003 64 223 173 37 462 1 11 9712004 77 47 171 27 744 39 1,1052005 14 17 83 16 134 69 3332006 52 104 94 40 267 39 5962007 45 88 129 20 227 127 6362008 128 162 124 72 217 242 9452009 808 111 155 97 446 329 1,9462010 27 67 160 61 130 392 837Total 3,899 4,327 2,559 1,355 1,6532 873 1,437 30,982Average for40 years 97 108 64 34 413 22 36 775Total for 28 years (1983-2010) 26,573Average for 28 years (1983-2010) 949



Ch

ap

ter 5

| 151

Table 5.4: Summary of Effects of Human Lives due to Disasters during 1983-2010

Hazard Deaths Missing Injuries Affected

Flood 3,568 447 443 3,526,011

Landslide 3,472 537 1,233 544,566

Other Hydro-metrological 1,908 877 2,687 314,218

Fire and forest fires 1,100 38 937 212,644

Epidemics 14,115 - 41,408 500,851

Earthquakes 748 - 6,592 4,539

Others 1,662 497 1,153 605,923

Total 26,573 2,396 54,453 5,708,752

Average of 28 years 950 86 1,945 203,884

Figure 5.2: Loss of human lives in Nepal due to disasters 1983-2010, as reported in twodatabases (MoHA and DesInventar)

While comparing data from two majorda t aba s e s (MoHA/DWIDP andDesInventar) for the same period (1983-2010), the DesInventar data under-reportstill 1990, whereas after 1990, the DesInventardata reports higher level of damage andcasualties (Figure 5.2). It is common to seethat the reason behind this could be thegrowing awareness of media in reportingsmall and medium size events.

Damage of PropertiesMoHA/DWIDP database provides a pictureof damage of private and public propertiesdue to disasters during the period 1983-2010. DesInventar database, whereas,

provides a comprehensive picture of damageand loss of properties during 1971-2010.

According to MoHA/DWIDP database,total livestock (different kinds of livestock)loss during the period of 28 years is 82,172(Table 5.5) with an annual average loss of2,935. Likewise, the damage of buildings is417,002 with annual average damage of14,900 buildings. Total agricultural landaffected is 117,967 hectares with annualaverage area affected 4,200 hectares. Total6,640 numbers of various publicinfrastructures including health facilities,government offices were lost during theperiod with an annual average of 240.



Ch

ap

ter

5

152 |

Loss of Houses Land Damage in Public Estimated loss Value of lossesYear Livestock Destroyed affected Infrastructures (Million NRs.) in 2010

(No.) (No.) (Ha.) (No.)

1983 248 12 240.00 1,974.381984 3,547 10,597 1,242 869 49.00 378.841985 3,399 7,166 1,355 436 23.00 167.491986 6,566 3,370 1,315 436 23.00 147.351987 1,852 36,220 18,858 421 2,005.00 11,363.181988 2,788 108,801 4,365 6,099.00 30,833.491989 4,240 7,648 4,172.00 19,353.441990 867 6,352 1,132 139.00 619.561991 642 5,510 283 39 43.00 174.861992 1,586 13,997 135 66 52.00 175.201993 21,911 5,189.00 16,197.441994 1,329 3,234 392 184.00 542.901995 2,053 10,275 41,867 1,933.00 5,303.581996 2,480 30,014 6,063 1,579.00 3,955.401997 1,191 4,825 6,063 410.00 947.461998 1,179 15,082 327 1,230.00 2,620.031999 650 4,304 182 509.00 964.482000 1,017 6,886 889 1,141.50 2,092.542001 665 6,103 526.55 936.132002 2,126 19,856 10,078 525.56 907.322003 1,125 6,819 2,360 989.93 1,631.432004 888 4,818 341.09 545.092005 955 3,169 387.21 592.702006 10,098 3,765 3,397 392.31 553.032007 21,861 37,984 514 1,928.55 2,555.422008 7,066 13,864 21,315 1,633.28 2,008.532009 228 1,050 5 420.25 458.402010 1,526 23,370 200 3 1,398.19 1,398.19Total 82,172 417,002 117,967 6,640 33,563.42 109,397.87

Average Annual Loss during the period (2010 Value) 3,907

Table 5.5: Damage of properties and Estimated Economic Loss (Value in 2010) due toDisasters during 1983 – 2010

(Million NRs.)

A more comprehensive data is provided byDesInventar data for the evaluation ofdamage of properties (Table 5.6 and 5.7).Discussion on the damages are presentedin the following paragraphs:a) Housing/buildingsA total of 222,362 houses were completelydestroyed and 168,482 were damaged by

different disasters during 1971-2010 (Table5.6). Around 46% of the total damage ofbuildings is due to floods, around 23% dueto earthquakes, 19% due to fires, and 8%due to landslides.Annual distribution of building damage ispresented in Table 5.7. Years 1980 and 1988show very high damage figures which aremainly due to two episodes of earthquakes:


Ch

ap

ter 5

| 153

the 1980 Bajhang earthquake and 1988Udayapur earthquake. There are severalother years, in which the number of buildingdamage is very high; particularly the highfigures in the years 1993 and 2008 are mainlydue to the flood of south-central Nepal andKoshi flood respectively. All other yearscomprise series of smaller, medium and fewlarger disaster events.b) Agricultural land and forestAgricultural land and forest are damaged,destroyed or washed away by variousdisasters every year particularly by floodsand landslides. Earthquakes also causelandslide, liquefaction and ground ruptureswhich ultimately result damage to land. TheDesInventar data includes such damage andloss of agricultural land and forests. Thepermanent losses of land as well as the lossof crops are considered. The agriculturalland washed away due to flood events isgenerally recovered after few years, however,this has not been considered in the data.Accordingly to the data from DesInventar,a total of 986,560 hectares of land havebeen damaged lost during past 40 years(Table 5.6). Major proportion (almost 94%)of land loss is due to flood (24%), landslide(2%) and other hydro-meteorological (68%)disasters. In other hydro-meteorologicaldisasters, it is mainly drought events whichcaused loss of agricultural crops during theperiod.

c) LivestockTotal 754,288 numbers of different livestockwere lost during the 40 years period due tovarious disaster events. Annual averagelivestock loss is around 19,000. Majorproportion of livestock loss is due tofrequent flood events (around 71%). Anothermajor contributor for livestock loss is fireand forest fire, which caused around 15%of total livestock loss.d) RoadsA total of 710 km of different types ofroads have been damaged or washed awayby different disasters during the past 40 yearperiod. Landslides are the major cause ofsuch damage of roads, around 51% of totaldamage of roads is due to landslide. Anothersignificant proportion is due to hydro-meteorological disasters, the primary hazardsbeing floods, storms, and heavy rainfall againcausing the land movements; this contributesfor 46% of the total loss.e) Education and medical facilitiesA total of 2,881 numbers educationalfacilities, primarily school buildings werelost during the 40 years period. 24 numbersof health facilities were also lost during theperiod. These figures seem to be very lowcompared to the actual cases. This is due tothe fact that such public buildings aregenerally reported under the classificationof housing/building; most of the time, theyare not separately reported.

Table 5.6: Damage of Private and Public Properties due to disasters during 1971-2010

Earthquake 33,708 55,312 - 2,215 - 2,461 1Flood 93,807 86,504 232,095 536,369 53,358 63 3Landslide 18,249 13,690 22,288 10,486 364,937 76 6Fire and Forest Fire 71,930 1,834 10,789 115,532 3,025 72 8Other Hydro-Meteorological 3,419 10,101 669,604 9,897 275,200 195 6Others 1,249 1,041 51,785 79,789 12,540 14 -Total 222,362 168,482 986,560 754,288 709,060 2,881 24

Hazard Destroyed(No.)

Damaged(No.)

AgriculturalLand and

Forest (Ha)Livestock

(No.)Roads

(affected inmeters)

Educationcenters

(No.)

MedicalFacilities

(No.)

Buildings Public Infrastructures



Ch

ap

ter

5

154 |

1971 131 142 500 1,335 - 2 -1972 771 86 397 340 - 1 -1973 1,957 160 1,404 709 500 - -1974 2,615 859 17,347 1,431 1,045 1 -1975 2,051 36 1,292 723 - 4 -1976 4,957 448 30,404 1,714 2,050 1 -1977 1,347 462 12,877 299 - - -1978 3,132 75 345 959 3,960 - -1979 2,061 68 778 695 - - -1980 14,348 13,650 16,818 10,881 - 68 11981 1,246 1,004 9,537 687 - 1 -1982 1,039 37 1,614 6,894 - 1 -1983 1,384 1,207 1,448 399 598 20 -1984 2,568 485 5,429 2,892 16,040 6 -1985 1,475 63 - 1,067 - 5 -1986 1,160 21 223 392 - 1 -1987 1,041 6,115 2,365 804 - 6 -1988 23,202 41,182 1,003 1,446 2,000 2,388 -1989 4,813 1,377 7,898 669 - 4 -1990 1,209 1,366 1,791 91 - 2 -1991 1,392 202 243 100 350 4 -1992 6,225 79 77,993 442 450 1 -1993 21,249 21,673 90,485 25,165 25,224 2 11994 3,175 517 157,688 766 160,000 15 -1995 9,685 15,898 23,622 2,409 - - -1996 19,638 13,923 6,849 2,995 - 6 -1997 4,549 1,046 80,668 26,414 50 - -1998 15,978 477 3,975 1,035 495 6 -1999 4,046 697 3,022 1,101 - 4 -2000 3,038 1,810 36,580 1,125 3,072 9 32001 6,308 2,350 51,920 28,672 200 12 -2002 14,059 5,479 12,561 4,593 2,780 3 -2003 1,974 761 72,634 2,395 271,062 27 22004 1,641 3,339 37,480 101,993 141,025 26 22005 1,449 539 15 1,484 44,320 20 2006 1,927 8,512 72,746 1,297 15 2007 9,456 1,466 5,696 499,566 80 31 12008 16,029 3,293 89,568 8,853 33,420 67 92009 3,761 9,125 38,902 7,782 24 104 42010 4,276 8,453 10,444 1,674 300 33 1Total 222,362 168,482 986,560 754,288 709,060 2,881 24

Hazard Destroyed(No.)

Damaged(No.)

AgriculturalLand and

Forest (Ha)Livestock

(No.)Roads

(affected inmeters)

Educationcenters

(No.)

MedicalFacilities

(No.)

Buildings Public Infrastructures

Table 5.7: Year-wise Damage of Private and Public Properties due to disastersduring 1971-2010


Ch

ap

ter 5

| 155

Economic values of damageand lossesEconomic values of all damage and losseshave been calculated (DesInventar, 2011).Year-wise economic loss values due todamage of different properties are presentedin Table 5.8. The loss values are calculatedfirst for the 2004 prices of the propertiesand then they are converted to current prices(2010 prices) using the Price Index fordifferent years.

Based on the calculations, the current valueof damages to all types of properties isaround 937,252.682 million Nepali Rupees.In other words, around 937 billion NepaliRupees worth of properties were lost duringthe period of past 40 years. This makes anaverage property loss of 23,431.317 millionNRs. every year. The Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) for the year 2010 is 1,183billion NRs. (Economic Survey, 2011). Ifwe compare this loss with the GDP, we findaround 2% of GDP is lost every year dueto disasters.

The years 1988, 1993 and 2008 again showa greater value of economic losses due tothe major intensive disasters during theseyears.

Losses due to floods have major contributionto the total economic loss. Floods causearound 70% of the total economic losses(Table 5.9 and Figure 5.3). The second largestcontributing hazard is drought, which cause9% of the total loss. Likewise, other hydro-meteorological disasters cause 8%, landslide5%, fires 4% and earthquakes 2% to thetotal loss.

According to the MoHA/DWIDP database,Table 5.5, the economic loss values duringthe period of 1983-2010 shows that the

highest economic loss occurred in the year1988; the loss during the year was around 6billion Nepali Rupees and the value of theloss in year 2010 is 30.83 billion. This hugeeconomic loss was mainly due to thedevastation caused by the 6.5 magnitudeearthquake of eastern Nepal, as well as dueto a series of flooding events in the sameyear. The year 1993 also shows a hugeeconomic loss, this loss was mainly due tothe severe flooding of the South-CentralNepal. The loss value during this year isaround 5.2 billion Nepali Rupees and thevalue of this loss in year 2010 is around 16.2billion. The impact of loss during 1988earthquake was also very large, the economicloss was around 6.83% of the GDP of theyear; the GDP of the year was 89.27 billionNepali Rupees. Likewise, other years withsignificant GDP losses were 1987, 1989 and1993; in these years the losses were 2.61%,4.03% and 2.61% respectively.

Figure 5.3: Proportion of economic lossesdue to different hazards in the total

economic losses during 1971-2010Source: DesInventar, 2011


Ch

ap

ter

5

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Valu

eEc

onom

icEc

onom

icSu

m o

f Tot

alSu

m o

fCu

rren

t val

ueCu

rren

t val

ueVa

lue

ofVa

lue

ofof

Los

s on

Valu

e of

valu

e of

Dam

ages

Curr

ent v

alue

Repo

rted

(201

0) o

f(2

010)

of T

otal

Year

Dest

roye

d Da

mag

ed

Agric

ultu

ral

loss

of

Road

(V

alue

of

(201

0) o

f lo

ss (N

Rs)

Repo

rted

loss

lo

sses

hous

esho

uses

Land

and

Live

stoc

kda

mag

eda

mag

e in

the

loss

es(N

Rs)

(Milli

on N

Rs.)

Fore

sts

year

2004

)

1971

17.5

58

1.317

25

0.00

0 16

.020

-

284.

895

455.

286

0.86

2 20

.657

47

5.94

3

1972

138.

031

3.10

2 80

8.63

0 4.

080

- 95

3.84

2 1,5

24.3

22

4.71

0 11

1.403

1,6

35.7

25

1973

355.

964

6.68

4 1,1

91.4

20

8.50

8 2.

000

1,564

.576

2,

500.

327

3.70

9 76

.785

2,

577.

112

1974

653.

058

22.3

83

22,7

63.8

00

17.17

2 4.

180

23,4

60.5

92

37,4

92.0

47

11.5

81

202.

866

37,6

94.9

13

1975

437.

601

0.80

3 3,

590.

020

8.67

6 -

4,03

7.09

9 6,

451.6

31

6.14

7 93

.036

6,

544.

667

1976

807.

899

18.5

82

18,2

28.9

50

20.5

68

10.5

00

19,0

86.4

98

30,5

01.8

67

43.0

56

661.6

90

31,16

3.55

8

1977

202.

956

10.3

13

3,36

5.60

5 3.

588

- 3,

582.

462

5,72

5.08

3 2.

807

41.4

89

5,76

6.57

2

1978

830.

041

2.08

4 65

5.50

0 11

.508

21

.916

1,5

21.0

49

2,43

0.76

7 13

.380

17

8.27

7 2,

609.

044

1979

501.1

26

1.369

1,4

20.0

60

8.34

0 -

1,930

.894

3,

085.

736

17.6

32

226.

507

3,31

2.24

2

1980

3,45

8.88

4 34

7.95

4 7,

520.

220

130.

572

- 11

,457

.630

18

,310

.279

10

.495

12

4.00

6 18

,434

.285

1981

231.7

56

27.7

63

6,09

7.09

5 8.

244

- 6,

364.

857

10,17

1.590

6.

552

68.5

24

10,2

40.11

4

1982

217.

392

0.37

6 1,4

18.2

14

82.7

28

- 1,7

18.7

10

2,74

6.64

7 52

.640

49

7.59

4 3,

244.

241

1983

162.

830

29.2

98

2,45

4.32

0 4.

788

2.30

1 2,

653.

536

4,24

0.57

9 30

.644

25

2.09

4 4,

492.

673

1984

457.

469

5.05

5 2,

579.

585

34.7

04

96.17

0 3,

172.

983

5,07

0.70

0 41

.812

32

3.27

2 5,

393.

971

1985

216.

063

2.24

6 -

12.8

04

- 23

1.113

36

9.33

8 39

.501

28

7.64

3 65

6.98

1

1986

189.

348

0.35

2 36

8.43

3 4.

704

- 56

2.83

7 89

9.46

2 25

7.36

9 1,6

48.8

73

2,54

8.33

5

1987

200.

651

57.5

98

4,49

3.50

0 9.

648

- 4,

761.3

96

7,60

9.12

1 42

.703

24

2.01

3 7,

851.1

34

1988

5,37

5.19

4 95

5.82

1 1,7

23.3

24

17.3

52

11.0

00

8,08

2.69

0 12

,916

.835

28

.452

14

3.84

0 13

,060

.675

1989

561.7

32

29.7

55

12,9

79.5

15

8.02

8 -

13,5

79.0

30

21,7

00.4

59

128.

460

595.

911

22,2

96.3

70

1990

150.

110

34.2

98

1,888

.870

1.0

92

- 2,

074.

370

3,31

5.02

2 22

.616

10

0.80

8 3,

415.

830

156 |

Tabl

e 5.

8: Y

ear-

wis

e ec

onom

ic v

alue

of d

amag

es (i

n M

illio

n N

Rs.)

Ch

ap

ter 5

| 157

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Valu

eEc

onom

icEc

onom

icSu

m o

f Tot

alSu

m o

fCu

rren

t val

ueCu

rren

t val

ueVa

lue

ofVa

lue

ofof

Los

s on

Valu

e of

valu

e of

Dam

ages

Curr

ent v

alue

Repo

rted

(201

0) o

f(2

010)

of T

otal

Year

Dest

roye

d Da

mag

ed

Agric

ultu

ral

loss

of

Road

(V

alue

of

(201

0) o

f lo

ss (N

Rs)

Repo

rted

loss

lo

sses

hous

esho

uses

Land

and

Live

stoc

kda

mag

eda

mag

e in

the

loss

es(N

Rs)

(Milli

on N

Rs.)

Fore

sts

year

2004

)

1991

218.

139

6.11

6 38

1.260

1.2

00

1.750

60

8.46

4 97

2.37

9 88

.142

358.

436

1,330

.815

1992

688.

500

1.784

14

,607

.915

5.

304

2.40

0 15

,305

.903

24

,460

.151

191.2

59

644.

389

25,10

4.54

0

1993

2,32

6.51

7 28

3.90

3 72

,296

.601

30

1.980

12

5.52

0 75

,334

.520

12

0,39

1.052

1,1

34.3

01

3,54

0.71

5 12

3,93

1.767

1994

654.

935

8.28

5 24

,754

.493

9.

192

800.

000

26,2

26.9

04

41,9

12.8

52

97.6

08

287.

995

42,2

00.8

47

1995

2,25

1.743

40

6.01

0 42

,318

.832

28

.908

-

45,0

05.4

92

71,9

22.6

53

2,13

0.79

5 5,

846.

266

77,7

68.9

19

1996

4,92

6.05

4 35

4.94

5 6,

690.

365

35.9

40

- 12

,007

.304

19

,188.

707

395.

301

990.

230

20,17

8.93

7

1997

1,046

.025

24

.514

14

,896

.797

31

6.96

8 0.

195

16,2

84.4

99

26,0

24.0

32

489.

260

1,130

.625

27

,154.

657

1998

3,73

1.467

4.

583

4,76

8.06

0 12

.420

1.5

60

8,51

8.08

9 13

,612

.640

38

3.16

3 81

6.17

5 14

,428

.815

1999

743.

141

14.5

76

4,13

1.095

13

.212

-

4,90

2.02

3 7,

833.

855

565.

016

1,070

.624

8,

904.

479

2000

502.

179

42.4

94

27,5

78.0

42

13.5

00

6.50

2 28

,142.

717

44,9

74.4

85

742.

962

1,361

.961

46

,336

.446

2001

856.

437

46.0

23

31,9

90.4

17

344.

064

0.32

0 33

,237

.260

53

,116.

005

1,509

.258

2,

683.

244

55,7

99.2

49

2002

1,584

.922

78

.265

22

,280

.897

55

.116

12.0

90

24,0

11.2

90

38,3

72.10

9 2,

842.

002

4,90

6.42

0 43

,278

.529

2003

247.

245

12.7

77 4

0,66

6.53

7 28

.740

94

4.23

7 41

,899

.535

66

,959

.066

51

2.86

3 84

5.21

1 67

,804

.277

2004

195.

496

37.2

22

46,3

71.4

64

1,223

.916

51

9.00

2 48

,347

.099

77

,262

.828

1,4

06.4

25

2,24

7.58

8 79

,510

.417

2005

187.

812

11.7

95

7.12

5 17

.808

23

1.160

45

5.70

0 69

7.54

3 14

2.59

0 21

8.26

3 91

5.80

6

2006

364.

546

207.

767

4,83

2.38

7 15

.564

0.

024

5,42

0.28

8 7,

640.

867

487.

352

687.

010

8,32

7.87

7

2007

2,30

0.09

8 33

.018

71

8.24

0 5,

994.

792

0.12

8 9,

046.

276

11,9

86.7

34

633.

128

838.

924

12,8

25.6

57

2008

1,748

.567

59

.664

63

,705

.381

10

6.23

6 12

.523

65

,632

.371

80

,711

.385

2,

039.

139

2,50

7.63

1 83

,219

.015

2009

549.

053

132.

878

2,01

9.38

5 93

.384

0.

038

2,79

4.73

8 3,

048.

474

947.

044

1,033

.027

4,

081.5

00

2010

494.

376

131.2

86

8,30

0.73

0 20

.088

0.

480

8,94

6.96

0 8,

946.

960

1,788

.788

1,7

88.7

88

10,7

35.7

48

Gran

dTo

tal

897,

551.8

71

39,7

00.8

11

937,

252.

682

Aver

age

valu

e of

dam

age

in e

ach

year

(at 2

010

price

)23

,431

.317

Sour

ce: D

esIn

vent

ar, 2

011


Ch

ap

ter

5

158 |

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Econ

omic

Valu

eEc

onom

icEc

onom

icSu

m o

f Tot

alSu

m o

fCu

rren

t val

ueCu

rren

t val

ueVa

lue

ofVa

lue

ofof

Los

s on

Valu

e of

valu

e of

Dam

ages

Pres

ent v

alue

Repo

rted

of R

epor

ted

of To

tal lo

sses

Year

Dest

roye

d Da

mag

ed

Agric

ultu

ral

loss

of

Road

(V

alue

of

(200

4 to

2010

) lo

ss

loss

2010

in 20

10ho

uses

hous

esLa

nd a

ndLi

vest

ock

dam

age

dam

age

in th

eof

loss

es(M

illion

NRs

)(M

illion

NRs

)(M

illion

NRs

.)Fo

rest

sye

ar 20

04)

Floo

d16

,255

.821

1,6

18.0

81

393,

518.

190

6,43

6.42

8 27

8.64

2 41

8,10

7.16

3 64

0,68

1.023

6,

109.

827

11,7

88.5

44

652,

469.

567

Land

slide

3,58

1.910

27

2.51

2 23

,156.

202

125.

832

1,501

.850

28

,638

.305

45

,523

.184

931.8

23

2,16

2.57

3 47

,685

.757

Drou

ght

- -

58,8

11.0

85

- -

58,8

11.0

85

89,3

22.2

40

11.7

00

18.2

80

89,3

40.5

21

Othe

r Hyd

ro-

Met

eoro

logi

cal

758.

315

185.

118

42,3

83.7

62

118.

764

971.8

00

44,4

17.7

58

69,7

79.3

67

2,83

3.14

8 4,

739.

511

74,5

18.8

78

Eart

hqua

ke8,

201.3

49

1,312

.018

-

26.5

80

- 9,

539.

947

15,2

45.4

90

22.8

34

72.7

71

15,3

18.2

61

Fire

and

Fore

st F

ire11

,797

.375

43

.525

66

0.86

6 1,3

86.3

84

4.84

0 13

,892

.990

21

,425

.977

9,

329.

426

20,8

26.7

85

42,2

52.7

62

Othe

rs18

8.13

5 23

.800

8,

582.

977

957.

468

48.8

64

9,80

1.244

15

,574

.590

52

.765

92

.346

15

,666

.936

Tota

l40

,782

.904

3,

455.

055

527,

113.

081

9,05

1.456

2,

805.

996

583,

208.

492

897,

551.8

71

19,2

91.5

22

39,7

00.8

11

937,

252.

682

Tabl

e 5.

9: M

ajor

Haz

ard-

wis

e Ec

onom

ic V

alue

of D

amag

es (i

n M

illio

n N

Rs.)

Sour

ce: D

esIn

vent

ar, 2

011

Ch

ap

ter 5

| 159

Damage and loss Vs.InvestmentsAssessment of Economics of Disaster RiskReduction, famously known as the Ex-anteand Ex-post Investment Estimates in DRR,was carried out in Nepal by the NationalSociety for Earthquake Technology - Nepal(NSET) in 2009 with the support fromGlobal Facility for Disaster Reduction andRecovery (GFDRR) of the World Bank.The study analysed the data on investmentsby different organizations during the period1998-2008 (NSET, 2011). The studyconsidered investments from mainly fourtypes of organizations, namely thegovernment organizations, donor agencies,UN system and few INGOs.

The analysis revealed that a total ofapproximately 1.1 Billion USD has beenspent in different stages of different hazardsin Nepal during last 11 years (1998 – 2008);of which around 60% (681.568 million USD)is direct investments and 40% (402.875million USD) is indirect investments. Outof the total 681.568 million USD directinvestments, 603.204 million has been spenton different planned activities for response,recovery, rehabilitation, reconstruction andpre-disaster mitigation and preparedness;and 78.364 million for ad-hoc responseactivities.

Out of the total direct and indirectinvestments, almost 50% of the total hasbeen spent on mitigation, preparedness andresponse to the epidemics (health sector)amounting to 566.200 million USD. Rest50% covers other remaining disasters. Thisis an obvious result in Nepal since significantproportion of the government budget isspent in health sector for providing basichealth services to the people and preventingvar ious epidemiologica l d iseases.

After epidemics, another major proportionis spent on landslides and floods: 158.200million (total of flood alone is 34.453 andlandslides, flood combined is 123.747).

A significant amount 332.717 million hasbeen spent on mitigation, preparedness togeneral response, relief covering the entirehazards; not clearly identified as focused toany specific hazard. This mainly includesthe post-event relief, (mostly cash for reliefand reconstruction), to the people throughDistrict Administration Offices under theMinistry of Home Affairs (MoHA), andprograms linked with preparedness andmitigation under different ministries.

Ex-ante and Ex-post investments:

• If we consider both direct and indirectexpenses, the ex-ante investments seemto be extremely higher than the ex-postinvestments: ex-ante 841.806 millionUSD and ex-post 242.637 million USD.

Ex-ante and ex-post investments

The resources executed by agencies andprograms ahead of disasters considered as ex-ante and those expenditures that happen afterthe disasters considered as ex-post.

Ex-ante and ex-post investments by origin andby final purpose

The total ex-ante and ex-post investment dataon the basis of the origin of investments (i.e. the

resources executed by agencies and programsahead of disasters considered as ex-ante andthose expenditures that happen after thedisasters considered as ex-post) is a bit differentthan the investment data based on their finalpurpose (i.e. prevention, mitigation, preparednessconsidered as ex-ante and rescue, relief,reconstruction, rehabilitation considered as ex-post).


Ch

ap

ter

5

160 |

• In terms of direct expenses, total ex-ante investment is 466.799 million USDand total ex-post investment is 214.769million USD. Out of the total directexpenses, 306.657 million USD is spenton epidemics alone.

• Total ex-ante investments on all otherhazards is 160.142 million USD and totalex-post investments is 214.769 millionUSD. This gives the realistic trend of theex-ante and ex-post investments.

• Total government ex-ante investmentsbased on origin is 237.387 million USDand ex-post is 117.536 million USDwhereas, based on final purpose theseinvestment figures are 145.943 and208.980 million USD respectively.

The trend shows that the ex-ante investmentshas been more or less increasing every yearat an average rate of 12.63% whereas, thesame of ex-post has been unevenlyfluctuating with an average increase rate of22.62% (Table 5.10 and Figure 5.4). The ex-ante investment is more predictable thanthe ex-post investments.

Ex-ante investments increased at 7.4% peryear for the last decade, and ex-post disasterspending grew more than twice as fast peryear at a rate of 18.4%. This later rate maskswide imbalances across years. For instance,

Table 5.10: Ex-ante and ex-post investments in Nepal during 1998-2008 (in million US Dollars)

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Ex-ante(Direct Gov+OtherAgencies) 9.783 9.401 11.053 12.04 10.208 13.8 12.625 16.07 16.368 20.526 28.268 160.142

Ex-post(Direct Gov+otherAgencies) 23.886 10.474 6.746 6.802 21.211 24.067 21.638 27.607 25.376 14.425 32.537 214.769

Total Loss 137.027 86.902011 395.657721 448.2879 365.519851 566.7953 682.4565 9.165483 85.32359 161.435 872.0706 3810.641

Figure 5.4: Trend of ex-ante and ex-postinvestments in Nepal

post-disaster financing grew more than twohundred percent between 2001 and 2002,and remained almost unaltered for thefollowing two years. In contrast, theincremental changes experienced by ex-anteinvestments over time make at least morepredictable the amount of resources thatcould be earmarked for this purpose.

Post-disaster expenses were moderate in2007 after five consecutive years ofexpenditures above-the-average. And yet,last year’s floods and landslides led to thehighest outlay for the entire period analyzed



Ch

ap

ter 5

Figure 5.5: Total Disaster Losses and Ex anteand ExPost Investments in disasters during

(1998-2008) in millionUSD

Hazard Grand/Disaster 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

I. WaterInduced Disaster 9966 10109 11337 14749 11117 11283 15234 22539 19108 23491 26881 175814

L .Water

Induced 132699.5 79320.91 388838 431567.6 318237.1 558017.2 632421.6 4006.148 71692.8 139117 856129

I .Earthquake 122 128 802 225 163 553 287 1157 390 1387 3072 8286

L.Earthquake 0 0 0 20.65975 0 0 0 0 0 9.8112 1.334784

I.Epidemics 20100 27212 30518 32788 35322 32895 49690 53038 64093 76098 144446 566200

L.Epidemic 11.09808 54.9408 1910.373 4087.506 78.41856 303.7611 812.0969 16.24248 161.9557 407.872 253.9717

I. Fire 112 125 122 130 134 132 135 171 190 175 1426

L.Fire 3441.03 6783.253 4225.262 7866.113 45804.24 3852.713 42537.33 4766.448 9953.958 10303.4 14898.53

I. General - All 41644 15981 12566 11553 25569 32728 24721 29996 36407 41541 60011 332717

L. General 875.3872 742.9121 684.0779 4745.989 1400.079 4621.664 6685.526 143.7036 3514.88 10050.58 787.8016

Total 71944 53555 55345 59445 72305 77591 90067 106730 120169 142707 234585 1084443

Table 5.11: Total disaster losses and ex-ante and ex-post investments in disasters during(1998-2008) in Million USD

(I- Investment, L- Losses)

Past studiesThere have been a number of studies carriedout in the past to understand the economicimpacts of disasters in Nepal. Followingparagraphs capture some of the key findingsof such studies.

• Some particular events, which areintensive in nature have caused very largeamount of damage and losses. Oneexample for such type of large extent ofdisaster can be seen in flood of 1993.The data on number of infrastructuredamages due to the July 1993 disaster isshown in Table 5.13.

| 161

(See Figure 3). These drastic shifts are moreformally captured in the average deviationof ex post expenditures: 8.78 million dollars,which is equivalent to 2.23 more times theaverage deviation from mean ex anteexpenditures.

The trend of investments on disasters hasbeen compared with the occurrence ofdifferent natural disasters and the impactsduring the same period. Table 11 and Figure5 provide summary of the disasters occurredduring the period 1998-2008. The obviousobservation is that the investments indifferent phases of disaster risk managementare very low as compared to the losses causedby various disasters during the period.




Ch

ap

ter

5

• Sedimentation - Nepal also suffers froma different type of infrastructure damageoften caused by landslides and debrisflows in filling up of reservoirs fromexcessive sedimentation, thus renderingthe reservoirs less effective or reducingthe reservoir's life. The rivers of Nepalare notorious for very high sedimentdischarge particularly during themonsoon season. In fact, sedimentproduction in Nepalese watersheds hasbeen acknowledged to be the highest inthe world (Carson 1985; Laban 1978).For example, the storage of KulekhaniReservoir was reduced from 12 millioncubic meters to 7.6 million cubic metersas a result of sedimentation and siltationduring landslide and flood disasters of1993 alone (Galay et. al. 1995).In the absence of a systematic anddetailed data on infrastructure damagein consolidated form, it is difficult to gettheir rehabilitation/ reconstruction.

• Roads - It has been estimated that thecost of reconstruction and rehabilitationof roads damaged by landslides andfloods in Nepal between the periods1979 to 1993 was NRs 2,250 million (i.e.,equivalent to US$ 50 million). Anestimated 10-25 per cent of the hill roadspassing through river valleys arecompletely washed out every four to fiveyears by a combination of landslides andfloods. Road failures and washouts as aresult of heavy monsoon rains duringfifteen years (1979- 1993) resulted in therehabilitation works amounting to nearly2.5 billion NRs. The implication of thecost of roads requires investment of

5 to 30 million rupees per kilometer thatis about 0.01 to 0.04 per cent of theannual budget of the nation for everykilometer of road.

• Based on the data compiled by theMinistry of Home Affairs, in the twentythree years between 1983 and 2005, over28 billion rupees were lost due todisasters; this is an average of nearly1,208 million rupees per year. In 2000alone, the economic losses wereestimated at 1.2 billion rupees; this is anormal year, when no exceptionaldisastrous events were reported (Chhetri,2002). The estimated loss of propertyby all types of disaster in the year 2005is about Rs. 388.21 million. Among themthe loss of property due to flood andlandslides only is 131.56 million. Hence,the water-induced disasters have playeda vital role in the loss of lives andproperty of the country in 2005.

• JICA (1993) has estimated the totaldisaster loss from floods and landslidesin the year 1993 is nearly 5 billionNepalese rupees. In the same way, Khanal(1996) has estimated the average annualinfrastructure damage due to landslidesand floods in terms of financial loss isapproximately US$ 20 mil l ion.

• A study on hydro-climatic disaster andits risk reduction in Nepal (Paudel, 2006)indicated that out of total financialassistance of 8.8 million USD providedby different agencies during the periodof 2000-2005, 9% (0.8 million USD) wasspent of emergency management, 3.3%(0.29 million USD) on recovery, 68% (6

Table 5.12: Infrastructure damage in July 1993 in Nepal

Roads (km) Bridges (No.) Dams (No.) FMIS (No.) Public Buildings (No.)

367 213 64 620 452

FMIS: Farmer-managed Irrigation System

162 |

Source: Khanal, 1996

Ch

ap

ter 5

million USD) on prevention, 17% (1.5million USD) on mitigation and 2.4%(0.21 million USD) on preparedness.

Summary and ConclusionsDisasters have tremendous impact on thelife of the people in many aspects. It hascaused widespread devastation, costingthousands of lives and billions of rupees.• The data reveals that Nepal suffers

human casualties and damages ofinfrastructures every year due to variousdisasters, though there are somevariations in data. The economic lossdue to major disasters, such 1988earthquakes and the floods of 1993 inNepal is phenomenal. The total directlosses due to property and infrastructuredamages and destruction alone reachbillions of rupees on an annual basis.Average annual losses to disaster arequite high by any standard in a poorcountry like Nepal. This is a substantialamount of loss on annual basis towarrant serious attention.

• The data of impacts caused by thedisasters also reveal that the estimatedannual economic loss is increasing withthe increasing frequency of disasters.The number of natural disasters as wellas the number of correspondingcasualties, injured and affected people,and economic loss is steadily on the rise.

If this trend holds, the country is likelyto face higher overall economic loss withthe passage of each year.

• The direct losses have potential furtherindirect and secondary impacts. Not allthe impacts are measurable. Thesecondary impact which is measurableis also quite significant as evident in theloss of GDP. A significant proportionof GDP is lost every year due to naturaldisasters. An enormous amount is spentfor rehabilitation and reconstruction ofdamaged and destroyed infrastructures.However, the indirect effects of disasterssuch as the reduction in agriculturalproductivity due to erosion of top soil,loss in efficiency of hydropower plantsand damage to irrigation facilities andsiltation in canals and reservoirs, cost ofresettlement of people affected, loss ofwork-hours in industry and servicesectors, environmental damages,economic losses due to disruption intraffic movement, and disruption inagricultural activities due to loss ofanimals used for tilling farms, humansufferings, psychological impacts/ traumaetc. that the people have to undergo afterthe disaster are not available as they aredifficult to determine empirically. Thissuggests that the socio-economic impactsof disasters are far reaching, and hencea more rigorous study on these aspectsis required.

| 163


Koshi Flood affected girl taking care of little sister while her parents queue upPhoto Courtesy: everestuncensored.org

Re

fere

nc

es

References

ADB1, 2009, ‘Grant Agreement (Special Operations)(Emergency Flood Damage Rehabilitation Project)between Nepal and ADB’, Available online:http://www2.adb.org

ADB2, 2009, ‘Report and Recommendation of thePresident to the Board of Directors on ProposedAsian Development Fund Grant Nepal:Emergency Flood Damage Rehabilitation Project,Project Number: 43001’, Available online:http://www2.adb.org

Baral, M., 2009, ‘Water Induced Disasters, FloodHazard Mapping & Koshi flood disaster of Nepal’Available online: http://www.icharm.pwri. go.jp

Carson, B. 1985; ICIMOD Occasional Paper No. 1,Kathmandu, Nepal "Erosion and SedimentationProcesses in the Nepalese Himalaya”

Chhetri, M. P., 2002; Disaster Management in Nepal:Issues and Solution. A paper presented at theSeminar on Mountain Hazard and RiskMinimization, 9-13 April 2001, Kathmandu, Nepal

Dangal R.; 2011, Disaster Risk Management: Policiesand Practices in Nepal

Deoja, B. B., 2000; Mountain roads development inNepal: engineering geological concerns, Jour. ofNepal Geol. Soc., The proceedings ofInternational Symposium on Engineering Geology,Hydrogeology, and Natural Disasters withEmphasis on Asia, v 22 Sp Issue, pp. 167-178.

Diarrhea Outbreak: Chronology, Available online:www.inseconline.org/pics/1257598337.pd,http://www.inseconline.org/index.php

Disease outbreaks and status of response mechanismfor this year, Available online:www.nepal.watsan.net/page/892

Dixit, A. M. & Koirala, A, 1989, ‘Report on theIntensity Mapping of Udaypur Earthquake of 20August, 1988’ Department of Mines and Geology,Kathmandu, 1989.

DPNet, 2008, ‘Situation Report of the Koshi Flood(Updated),’ Available online: http://www.un.org.np

DWIDP (2011), Disaster Review 2010, DWIDP,Ministry of Irrigation, Government of Nepal,July 2011, series XVIII

EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International DisasterDatabase –www.emdat.be – Université catholiquede Louvain – Brussels – Belgium

ERN-AL (2011) Probabilistic Modelling of NaturalRisks at the Global Level: the Hybrid LossExceedance Curve (Development of Methodologyand Implementation of Case Studies, Phase 1A:Colombia, Mexico and Nepal) Evaluacion deRiesgos Naturales - America Latina (ERN-AL)February 2011, Report submitted to UN ISDRGlobal Assessment Report on Disaster RiskReduction

Gyawali D. & Dixit A. “Community Response toDisaster” 1993 flood in Central Nepal and itsaftermath.

Health Cluster, ‘Outbreak Situation Report, 23 July2009’, Available online: www.searo.who.int

Health Cluster, ‘Outbreak Situation Report, 28 July2009’, Available online: www.nep.searo.who.int

Health Cluster, ‘Outbreak Situation Report, 3 August2009’, Available online: www.searo.who.int

Jajarkot, Nepal Cholera Outbreak, Available online:www.bvsde.paho.org

JICA, 1993; Report of Japan Disaster Relief Team(Expert Team) on heavy rainfall and floods inNepal, Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), JR1JDC/93-03, unpublished, 125 pp

JICA, 2002, ‘Earthquake Disaster Assessment andDatabase System’ in ‘The Study on EarthquakeDisaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu valley,Kingdom of Nepal’.

Jnavaly S.S., 'Stories from Frontline', Action Aid Nepal2010

Karki M., Mool P., Shrestha A., Climate Change andits Increasing Impacts in Nepal.

Kellett, J, 2009, ‘A Review of the Emergency ShelterCluster Koshi Floods Emergency Response Nepal,from August 2008’, Available online: www.ifrc.org

Khanal, N.R., 1996, "Assessment of Natural Hazardsin Nepal" Report submitted to Research Division,Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal(unpublished)

Kreimer, A. & Preece, M., 2002, ‘Case study: NepalMunicipal Development and EarthquakeReconstruction Project’, Available online:http://desastres.unanleon-edu.ni/pdf

Laban, P. 1978; "Field Measurement on Erosion andSedimentation in Nepal", Dept. of SoilConservation and Watershed Management, PaperNo. 5, Kathmandu, Nepal

LWF Nepal, 2008, ‘Rapid Response: Koshi FloodSurvivors’ from the Journal ‘LWF Nepal’, vol. 2,no. 3, pp. 1

MoF/GoN, (2010) 'Nepal Economic Survey 2009/10',Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal,Available online: http://www.mof.gov.np

MoHA, 2004; Disaster Scenario of Nepal 2000-200,Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs,2004

NDMF,2005; Final Report on An overview of thepriority of the disaster risk reduction in Nepal,submitted to Action Aid Nepal and submitted byNatural Disaster Management Forum Nepal(NDMF Nepal), Kathmandu

Nepal Red Cross Society and the InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties, Geneva, 2011; International DisasterResponse Law (IDRL) in Nepal; A study onstrengthening legal preparedness for internationaldisaster response

NGS, News Bulletin, Volume 8-15, February 1996-1998, Nepal Geological Society

| 165


Re

fere

nc

es

NGS, News Bulletin, Volume 16, April 1999, NepalGeological Society

NGS, News Bulletin, Volume 17, April 2000, NepalGeological Society

NSET/UNDP (2005), 'DisasterInventory/Information Management System(DIMS) in Nepal', 2005, Final Report submittedto UNDP Nepal.

NSET, 2007; DesInventar, 2007; A Report onDesInventar Data Analysis, National Society forEarthquake Technology- Nepal (NSET), 2007

NSET, 2011; DesInventar, 2011; A Report onDesInventar Data Analysis, National Society forEarthquake Technology- Nepal (NSET), 2011

NSET, 2011; Report on Analysis of Ex-ante and Ex-post Investments on Disaster Risk Managementin Nepal, National Society for EarthquakeTechnology- Nepal (NSET), Kathmandu,2011(In-house Report)

NSET, 1999; Kathmandu Valley’s Earthquake Scenario,NSET; Kathmandu; 1999

NSET, 1999; The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake RiskManagement Action Plan. NSET; Kathmandu,1999

NSET,2000; Seismic Vulnerability of The PublicSchool Buildings of Kathmandu Valley andMethods for Reducing it: a report on the SchoolEarthquake Safety Program of the KathmanduValley Earthquake Risk Management Project;NSET, Kathmandu, 2000

NSET, 2000; A Vocabulary of Disaster Terms (English– Nepali); Prepared under the WSSI FellowshipProgram (Draft), NSET, Kathmandu; 2000

Outbreak Situation Report 28 July 2009, Availableonline: www.nep.searo.who.int

Paudel, D.2006; An Overview of Hydro-climaticDisaster Risks and its Reduction in Nepal.Proceedings of the International Workshop onFlood Forecasting Management in MountainousAreas held on 12-14 June 2006, Kathmandu;Department of Hydrology and Meteorology,Government of Nepal, Kathmandu , 209-218

Robert Merrill Padco, Inc., 1990, ‘Documentation ofNepal Housing Reconstruction Loan Programfor Earthquake Damaged Housing’, Availableonline: http://pdf.usaid.gov

Social Welfare Council, Year 6/ No 18 Vol 62,“SamajikSewa Samachara” Poush 2050.

Thapa, N., 1988, 'Bhadau Panch Ko Bhukampa (inNepali)', Second Edition, Central Disaster ReliefCommittee, Kathmandu, 1989.

The World Bank, 1997, ‘Implementation CompletionReport-Nepal Municipal Development andEarthquake Emergency Housing ReconstructionProject’, Available online: http://www-wds.worldbank.org

UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘NepalEarthquake Aug 1988 UNDRO Situation Reports1-8’, Available online: http://reliefweb.int

UNESCO, 2009; Rapid Hazard and Risk Assessment:Post-Flood Return Analysis, p. 46, June 2009Available Online; http://www.un.org.np

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), the World Bank and the World ResourcesInstitute, 'World Resources Report 2010-2011'.

UNOCHA, ‘Situation Update, Mid Western RegionDiarrhoea Outbreak, 12 July 2009’, Availableonline: www.searo.who.int

UNOCHA Situation Update: Mid and Far WesternRegions Diarrhoea Outbreak, Available online:http://un.org.np

UNOCHA, 2009, ‘Koshi Flood Response Update, 13May 2009, Sunsari District’, Available online:http://reliefweb.int

UNOCHA (2010), 'Nepal Floods and LandslidesSituation Report', Issue No 02, 06 September2010, Humanitarian Support Unit OCHA UNRC/HC Office, Available online:www.desinventar.net, http://www.emdat.be

Upadhyay B. 'Rehabilitation of flood victims a casestudy', A paper presented at the Workshop onSustainable Housing, 29-30 Nov 1995.

Upreti, B. N. 2006, The nexus between NaturalDisasters and Development: Key Policy issues inmeeting the Millennium Development Goals andPoverty Alleviation, Economic Policy Network,Policy Paper 27

UNISDR (2009), 'Global Assessment Report onDisaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in achanging climate', UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland

USAID Nepal, 2010, ‘Update: Progress in KoshiFlood Recovery’ from ‘Monthly Update-March2010, Issue # 13, USAID/ Nepal Flood RecoveryProgram, Build Back Better’, Available online:http://www.fintrac.com

World Bank and The United Nations (2011);NaturalHazards, Unnatural disasters; The Economics ofEffective Prevention/ World Bank and The UnitedNations, 2011

166 |