In a rapidly changing context, DRRM3 - 2074 provides the legal framework for DRM in Nepal, though
the regulations were not drafted at the time of research and hence it was not yet articulated how the roles and responsibilities would translate into practice. Figure 8 shows the general understanding articulated by various government actors, with pale arrows denoting areas where greater clarity is need. For example, the mechanisms for reporting and overall oversight are not yet widely understood at central or district and local government level, nor if and how financial flows between the central level and committees, districts, and local governments will work. Until the various committees are established and convened, it is unlikely that progress can be made in this regard.
Four particular features of the DRRM Act are of particular importance for this project. 4.2.1 Distinction between four discrete but overlapping pillars of DRM
DRM is, in theory, focused on four pillars: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. At this moment, there is a clear prioritization of and progress in achieving the last two of the four pillars. Far more attention is paid to response and recovery in guidance documents and human and financial resources than to mitigation and preparedness. At the central level, although respondents described a generic system covering the full DRM cycle, they tended to focus the discussion on emergency/immediate response and a subsequent period of response/recovery. There was less articulation of explanation of preparedness (mainly in relation to flood prone areas) and very little on mitigation. At the local government level, the focus was on post-disaster activities, particularly on rebuilding houses. This focus is reflected in the distribution of guidance related to mitigation,
3 For the remainder of this paper we use ‘DRRM Act’ to refer specifically to the 2074 Act, and ‘DRM’ to refer to
38
preparedness, response, and recovery: 23 building code manuals are being revised following the 2015 earthquake with very little in the way of guidance for anything else.
Figure 8 DRM roles, responsibilities and relationships in April 2018
This is mostly likely the result of massive investments by the government and other donors in housing reconstruction following the 2015 earthquake and the challenges of rescue and early response during the 2017 floods. It skews the current overall policy agenda and allocation of resources toward early response and reconstruction.
4.2.2 Articulation of mandates, funding, roles, and responsibilities across the three tiers of government The DRRM Act provides information on the organization of DRM at the central level, particularly the roles of key committees and authorities. The Disaster Management Authority (DMA), an executive agency, will be run from the MoHA with an Executive Committee chaired by the Home Minister. At the time of the consultations in Kathmandu in early April 2018, the DMA had not yet been convened. Above the DMA there will be a National Disaster Council (NDC) chaired by the Prime Minister with responsibility for future policy changes. For mitigation and preparedness functions, there is work to be done to address fragmentation of roles at the central level, especially how the large range of ministries and departments with roles in flood and landslide mitigation and early warning are to be coordinated.
At the subnational level there is provision for a state-/provincial-level structure which is well tasked with coordination responsibilities. However, given that the provincial governments are the last of the three levels to be established (while local government elections were mainly held in mid-2017,
39
provincial elections took place in the autumn) it is taking longer for arrangements for provincial DRM mandates to be operationalized. State/provincial Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) were yet to be established or convened. No respondents were able to articulate with certainty how the provisions of the DRRM Act would translate into a mandate between the central and local governments in practice.
There is less clarity in the DRRM Act about the local-level mechanisms, and particularly limited information about specific and precise roles and responsibilities of municipalities, rural municipalities, and wards. Some guidance may be provided through the 2017 LGOA (2074) but there is potential for guidance to be interpreted differently in different municipalities and rural municipalities. Further clarity may be provided by the National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy and Strategic Action Plan which was under discussion when consultations for this research were taking place.
4.2.3 Provision for district roles and responsibilities
The DRRM Act lays out broad provisions and is interpreted very differently by respondents. There was no agreement on future roles at the district level among respondents. While the district DMC structure (with the inclusion of municipality mayors and rural municipality chairpersons) was widely viewed as fit for purpose, there was not agreement on whether the district-level coordination process was filling the gap before local government-level disaster committees are formed or whether it would be part of the permanent institutional arrangements.
In contrast, at the central level it was suggested that the local government will take on responsibility for most of the DRM pillars, with support from the coordinating DMA when it is operational. The role of the Chief District Officer (CDO) in disaster management was presented as temporary, while the new systems are established. However, it is notable that the roles of districts are provided for permanently in the act. So, while many functions of the former district administrations are moving to local governments, disaster response remains at the district level with the CDO. It is unclear how response will be coordinated with mitigation, preparedness, and recovery.
4.2.4 Provision for funds and financial flows
Figure 9 outlines the fund flow mechanisms that are stipulated in the DRRM Act and various other policy documents. Given the provision of these fund streams in policy there remained some confusion whether they operate in practice, as evidenced by the conflicting views expressed at all three levels of government (central, district, and local). It is expected that this will be clarified in the forthcoming regulations and guidelines.
There are currently three main funding streams identified: (a) the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (PMDRF), which receives contributions from the government, members of the public, and foreign donors and agencies; (b) the Disaster Management Fund (DMF) at MoHA, both of which are focused on response, and (c) the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) Fund,4 focused on
recovery of housing damaged by the earthquake.
40
The fund flow of the PMDRF is guided by the PMDRF Operation Regulations 2006 and there are conditions outlined about where the fund can be used and where not. The fund is managed by a regulation committee headed by the vice chairman of the National Planning Commission and secretaries of eight ministries (relating to clusters in response system). An unanimous committee decision triggers the release of funds through MoHA to the CDO who coordinates the District Disaster Relief Fund. The fund is used for rescue and response in coordination with local bodies. The Fund Regulation Committee can also disburse to other entities. This allows disbursals to the new provincial and local structures but thus far the fund has always been routed through MoHA to the DAO.
The DMF is a part of the MoHA budget but it can receive money from the PMDRF. The fund is rolling and routed through the district structures. In the absence of regulations, there is little clarity among stakeholders whether it can or will be routed direct to the local government level. There is also provision for compensation payments to disaster-affected households in the 2017 Rescue and Relief Standard for Disaster Affected - 6th amendment, 2074. This stipulates a minimum compensation for death due to disasters of NPR 4 lakh in mountainous districts, NPR 5 lakh in middle hills, and NPR 7 lakh in Terai districts. The same guideline also calls for establishment of the Regional Disaster Relief Fund with a minimum of NPR 7 lakh. Neither stipulation was mentioned at the district or local level. At the local level, respondents cited two funding systems for types of shock response which are administered upon request from two levels: local government to support response for numerous households affected by shock (covariant shock), and community level to compensate/support individual households that experience shock that affects one or very few households (idiosyncratic shock).
It was unclear among stakeholders what the distinction was between the PMDRF and the MoHA DMF. Both funds were focused on emergency response with funding for mitigation, preparedness, and recovery requirements moving through equalization grants to the local government and so responsibilities and resourcing for all but disaster responses appear to have been shifted to the local government. The links between preparedness at the local level and those activities running across the boundaries of local government constituencies are mentioned in the 2017 LGOA 2074 but will need some time to be understood and for the nuances around actual coordination of funds to be picked out.
At the local level, Figure 9 highlights two types of grant (conditional and equalization) that respondents suggested may be a source of funding for DRM. It was suggested that conditional grants for DRM would be request based, with central-level government officials stating that requests are processed only annually. Funding is otherwise at the discretion of the local government through allocation of its equalization grant. In emergencies, while there is provision on paper for requests from local to district, local to provincial, and local to central, the mechanisms and practice fund transfer from provincial and central level were not wholly understood, nor were examples shared of their operation in practice.
At the time of research (April 2018) no decisions or financial flows seem to be channeled through a province and, except perhaps in the case of a disaster where a more coordinated response was required across district boundaries, it was not clear why a province would need to be involved in the disbursement of funds between the central and local levels.
41
Figure 9: Fund flow mechanism as understood by respondents in April 2018