• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Subnational disaster risk management involving communities in Nepal

Subnational disaster risk management involving communities in Nepal

Helpdesk Report
  • Emilie Combaz
October 2015

Question

Please provide an overview of the literature on subnational disaster risk management that involves communities in Nepal. Identify successes and failures (including with regard to social inclusion), and key factors of success and failure. Where possible, consider variation among districts, engagement with local and district government, and the types and methodologies of interventions supported. Focus on disaster preparedness and risk reduction, with resilience and response as complementary considerations.

Summary

In a bid to better tackle risk (exposure and vulnerabilities) and its management (capacities and resilience), domestic and foreign actors have promoted disaster risk management (DRM) that involve communities at the levels of regions, districts, municipalities, wards, or smaller-scale units such as schools.

Key findings of the literature review include:

  • Successful interventions have had notable impact, including: lives saved and injuries avoided, livelihoods preserved or improved, public goods, such as schools, protected, better preparedness of populations and local government, empowerment (including for women) in some communities, and greater resilience. A number of well implemented programmes have been very efficient. Conversely, interventions that have partially or entirely failed have led to opposite impacts.
  • Factors typically associated with positive impact have included:
    • Carrying out effective programming for local preparedness and response, with a mix of interventions like physical protections against floods, capacity-building, and strengthening of local institutions for DRM and their links to various levels of government.
    • Adapting DRM to urban areas, for example by taking into account mobility, domino effects leading to sequential crises, and the need for local leadership skilled in complex urban DRM.
    • Embedding DRR in schools, with a combination of physical and community interventions.
    • Empowering disadvantaged groups, such as the poorest, women, children, persons with disabilities, and members of lower castes.
    • Drawing on enabling laws and norms (e.g. “Mandatory Rules of Thumb”, forestry groups).
  • Factors typically associated with negative impact have included:
    • Inaction and problems in formal DRM policies, laws and implementation. There are gaps in laws and regulations (e.g. on land use). All levels of government have displayed limited action, capacities, coordination and consultation on subnational DRM. Some programmes for community- and school-based DRM had deficiencies.
    • Lack of learning from other disasters and DRM (e.g. across regions, hazards or projects).
    • Adverse implications of international, national and local political economy. Major factors include political constraints on decision-making (e.g. elite capture), inequalities and divisions (e.g. gender, caste), and technical framings and silos that neglect the connections between broad issues such as livelihoods, governance, equity, conflict, environment and hazards.
  • Some factors have had contradictory effects on DRM: linkages between communities and local government, and migration. Some effective DRM activities have also generated unintended negative consequences (e.g. false sense of safety due to embankments, numbing to risk).
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 660 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Combaz, E. (2015). Subnational disaster risk management involving communities in Nepal (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1289). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Supporting and rebuilding agriculture in protracted crises
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transitional shelter in post-disaster contexts
Helpdesk Report
2016
Seasonal vulnerability and risk calendar in Nepal
Helpdesk Report
2016
National Disaster Management Authorities
Helpdesk Report
2016
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022