In light of the strong institutionalised disaster response paradigm discussed above efforts were underway in Nepal to shift the paradigm to that of disaster risk reduction. These efforts are discussed in the following section.
143
6.2.2.1 The Hyogo Framework for Action and the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management
The primary impetus for mainstreaming DRR in Nepal came through the Hyogo Framework for Action, and subsequent donor and INGO driven incentives to reform Nepal’s antiquated disaster management institutions to meet HFA objectives. In response to the HFA, the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (herein referred to as the National Strategy) was adopted by the GON in 2009 as “the result of the necessity felt for a concrete, meaningful and integrated document based on Hyogo Framework of Action…” (GON 2009: iv). In the absence of legislation, the National Strategy is the only central level document that outlines the GON policy goals and articulates how the GON frames (or defines) the DRR policy problem.
The development of the National Strategy was the result of external GON stakeholder efforts. For instance, funding for the development of the National Strategy was provided by the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid
Department, UNDP provided project coordination, and technical assistance was provided by the National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) (NSET 2011). Having been endorsed by the GON, the National Strategy explicitly sets mainstreaming DRR as a policy goal.
144
Table 6-1. Comparison of the HFA and the Nepal National Strategy
(Source: UNISDR 2005; GON 2009) The National Strategy gives importance to institutional development and
prescribes mainstreaming/integrating DRR as a strategic priority for
implementation. The frequency upon which the National Strategy document uses the terms mainstreaming and integration is indicative of the GONs support
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 National Strategy for Disaster Risk
Management in Nepal, 2009
Priority Action One
Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for
implementation. Key activities:
Support the creation and
strengthening of national integrated disaster risk reduction mechanisms, such as multi sectoral national platforms, with designated responsibilities at the national through to the local levels to facilitated coordination across sectors. National platforms should also facilitate coordination across sectors, including by mainstreaming a broad based dialogue at national and regional levels for promoting awareness among the relevant sectors.
Integrate risk reduction, as appropriate, into development policies and planning at all levels of government, including in poverty reduction strategies and sectors and multi sector policies and plans.
Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation:
Strategic Activity 3: mainstream DRR into national development.
Strategic Activity 4: integrate DRR and preparedness into development plans, programmes and regular activities of local development institutions for effective response to disasters.
Priority Action Four
Reduce the underlying risk factors (iii) Land-use planning and other technical measures:
(o) Mainstream disaster risk considerations into planning procedures for major infrastructure projects, including the criteria for design, approval and implementation of such projects and considerations based on social, economic and environmental impact assessments.
Reducing the underlying risk factors: Strategic activity 19: Integrate DRR concept into infrastructure
development planning, and execution processes.
145
for the policy process, i.e. “mainstreaming” (n=20), “integrate DRR” (n=3) and “integration of DRR” (n= 4). As seen in Table 6-1, the National Strategy shares similar language to the HFA, providing further evidence that mainstreaming DRR in the GON was diffused directly through the UNISDR HFA framework.
Although the National Strategy maintains HFA’s focus on mainstreaming and integration of DRR, it removed much of the detailed content found in the HFA. At no point does the National Strategy provide a definition of mainstreaming nor does it provide the GON sector ministries with guidance for integrating DRR into sector plans and policy. The closest the National Strategy comes to offering substantive processual guidance is outlined in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. National Strategy Central Level Mainstreaming DRR Directives
Challenges Strategic Activity Indicative and
Outcomes Responsible Agency Enhancement of the spirit of integrated
outlook among all agencies, sectors, and individuals is necessary for mainstreaming development programs into DRR related issues. It is also necessary to give thought to link disaster related issues with poverty reduction program and MDG. Mainstreaming DRM into National Development. DRM mainstreamed in existing National Development Strategy and policies including PRSP, MDG and Periodic Development Plans. Arrangement made for mandatory disaster risk assessment of large infrastructure development projects.
A contact point at all ministries for the formulation and implementation of disaster risk mitigation and preparedness program. All concerned ministries, NPC, and National Disaster Management Authority (proposed). (Source: GON 2009)
As seen in Table 6-2, the National Strategy seeks to enhance “the spirit of integrated outlook”, but this alone in the Nepal public administrative context is not enough to incite action (see Chapter 4). Some of the recommended actions
146
in the Indicative and Outcomes column had been acted upon, such as incorporating DRR into various national level development plans and focal persons in each ministry. It makes reference to the National Disaster
Management Authority (NDMA) as an agency responsible for implementation. The creation of the NDMA as a high level government agency has been
proposed in Nepal since 2008. It is a contested feature of the National Strategy and is discussed below in section 6.3.1.
6.2.2.2 Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC): Flagships Four and Five
The discussion now turns to discuss the two mechanisms that were working to support the GON’s adoption of mainstreaming DRR. To assist the GON to achieve its National Strategy/HFA commitments, an innovate strategy was devised by the Nepal UN Resident Coordinator at the time. Launched in 2009 by UNDP in partnership with the GON, the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium is a unique and integrative mechanism “to prioritize and implement key elements of the NSDRM” (IFCR 2011: 8). A Steering Committee, made up of senior
government officials, donors, UN agencies and others oversee five thematic programme areas (called Flagships) each led by a GON ministry and supported by a relevant INGO/NGO. They are organized as follows:
Flagship 1: School and Hospital Safety (led by Asian Development
Bank/Ministry of Education & World Health Organisation/Ministry of Health and Population)
Flagship 2: Emergency Preparedness and Response (led by Red Cross/Ministry of Home Affairs)
Flagship 3: Flood Risk Management (led by World Bank/Ministry of Irrigation)
Flagship 4: Community Based Disaster Risk Management (led by
International Federation of Red Cross/Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development)
Flagship 5: Policy/Institutional Strengthening (led by United Nations Development Programme/Ministry of Home Affairs)
147
Mainstreaming DRM is considered a ‘key element’ of the National Strategy that both Flagship 4 led by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (community/local level) and Flagship 5 led by MOHA (central level policy) are working to address. The main role of each Flagship is to facilitate coordination and compile lessons learned. An online information sharing platform for both flagships had been created, allowing access to some of the meeting minutes, presentations, and documents28. The result was greater transparency around
the processes concerning disaster risk management, which is in stark contrast to the way MOHA traditionally operated as a powerful, clandestine, law and order institution.
6.2.2.3 DRR Focal Point System
In 2011, UNDP-Nepal launched a $16.55 million (USD) Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Project (CDRMP) “to strengthen the institutional and
legislative aspects of disaster risk management (DRM) in Nepal by building the capacities of MOHA, MOFALD, other partner ministries, departments and local governments…” (UNDP 2015: Online). Unlike the coordination function of the NRRC, the CDRMP was a programme aimed at direct government intervention. One component of the CDRMP was support for MOHA to jointly establish along with the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment (MOSTE) a Climate Change (CC) and DRM Focal Point29 System. The Focal Point System was intended to “develop an institutional mechanism that would harmonize and effectively respond to future needs of disaster risks and risks aggregated due to climate change impact” (UNDP-Nepal 2015: 5). This was the most visible policy instrument for mainstreaming DRR observed.
The majority of central government respondents (n=9) interviewed for this research were (or had been) their ministry CC/DRM focal point. A CC/DRM focal point is a government staff member who is typically appointed (in most cases they were ‘voluntold’ by senior ranking ministry staff) and assigned the DRR portfolio for their ministry. Initially twenty-six Focal Points from various Ministries were assigned (UNDP-Nepal 2015). One respondent, a young engineer, had the focal person job offered to him as a career advancement opportunity:
28 Flagship 4 (http://flagship4.nrrc.org.np/) and Flagship 5 (http://flagship5.org.np/)
29 “…it was proposed that the system will be called as a focal point instead of a focal
148
I still remember my Joint Secretary. What he said is “ok, I am sending you to the training related to disaster”. I said at the time, “no, I’m a civil
engineer why should I go for this disaster?” He said “you know this disaster is very key thing. You should know what the disaster is and it would be very helpful for your career” … And now it was very good experience (Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transportation). The primary function for Focal Points is to stimulate DRR integration throughout their respective ministry. Focal Points from each ministry were invited to attend and share information on disaster related issues through participation at various coordination meetings hosted by MOHA. Attendance at the coordination
meetings was varied:
I think in one year we met four or five times (Ministry of Energy).
On average once a month. MOHA invites us and we will gather and make discussions related to the issues (Ministry of Agricultural Development). One time per three months (Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare).
Historically, the only time various ministries would be called upon to meet and discuss disaster related issues was during a disaster response as part of the Central Disaster Relief Committee (as required by the DCR Act). The Focal Point System established a new mechanism to discuss disasters more broadly and during non-disaster periods:
…we are also having regular meetings as focal ministries, it is conducting regular meetings of the focal persons regarding any issues, any
documents, any capacity building programs, or any action plans or some sort of contingency plans they are developing. They are shared at that meeting and we used to do the information exchange with other Ministries (Ministry of Health and Population).
In one instance, it was clear that serving as a ministry focal point had made a lasting impression. The respondent was no longer the appointed focal person, but his experience of serving for 2 years and the training he had gained prompted him to share that knowledge more broadly:
After all this disaster awareness and disaster focal person I learned much more. I wrote the text books of my civil engineering. As a civil engineer we don’t study this disaster management. We only say what is the hazard? (Ministry of Physical Instructure and Transportation).
One avenue of training for the focal points had been provided by the Nepal Administrative Staff College (NASC). NASC is an autonomous educational
149
facility aimed at enhancing public sector capability. Two trainers from NASC, who were involved in the DRM course development and delivery, were
interviewed. The respondents described their training role with the focal points:
Government also have provision to make focal person in each ministry like that and we deal with them. They come for training, and they go back, then a new batch come for training and they go to their places and they work. So, it is a very continuous process. Now you see it has been one of the major agenda for building the public-sector capacity (NASC).
The NASC respondents had a strong grasp of the concept of mainstreaming DRR:
So, mainstreaming we have defined, it means that even in each and every development works we have to consider what might be the disaster risk through this development works. Sometimes what happens is that disaster affects the development works and sometimes development works bring disaster as well (NASC).
The NASC training seemed to be stressing the need for risk reduction
approaches to be applied throughout the government. The following story was told by the respondent:
Interesting thing we met one of the guys yesterday who had been trained in disaster things. And he had been working in a land revenue office now. Generally, what happens is that in Nepal they tell us that when there is a disaster it is the primary responsibility of the MOHA for the rescue and operations and all these things and Ministry of Urban Construction and Physical Planning and Development. But he had been working in the land revenue. But what he said was, after being trained in the disaster things, you know last time when we are proposing the next year’s planning. He said that, “Our building is not good in an earthquake. For the DRR and all these things. Let’s try to retrofit. What can we do to reduce the risk of this earthquake because our office is very vulnerable?” So, he spoke to the director general, and he said, “Is it really needed?” … So, you see how an individual, a sensitized individual, can bring the issues to the upper level as well. Even he was proposing something, even though it was very little, he was thinking in line with the DRR things (NASC).
The NASC respondent’s depth of knowledge concerning both DRR and about the public administration challenges facing Nepal indicated that the NASC may be an excellent resource and tool for promoting DRR sector integration and building government capacity. Unfortunately, funding for this training had run out and they had discontinued the course at the time of the pre-earthquake
fieldwork. Another disconcerting factor was that the respondent from MOHA was unaware of the mainstreaming DRR expertise that existed at the NASC,
150
providing evidence that there was a disconnect between the work of MOHA, UNDP and NASC.
There is a training… we have a staff college a very good training centre. They are teaching very well. But actually, they have not taught about mainstreaming. Actually, we can expedite them at the staff college to have a mainstreaming training in the future (MOHA).
At the time of fieldwork, the focal point system showed limited signs of being functional. Of the nine respondents who were focal points, two were no longer their Ministry DRR focal point. They had been transferred to other
divisions/departments and had not been replaced. Another limiting factor was that most respondents were at the under-secretary rank in the bureaucracy. The respondents at this level did not have the capacity to make decisions on behalf of the Ministry, they could only make suggestions to senior leadership:
Without good leadership, we cannot do anything. We are not in a decision- making level. We can only suggest to someone. We can’t make this decision (MOWCSW).
Taking into the account the highly centralised and top down ethos of the Nepal administration system meant that decision making comes from Ministers and their appointed Secretaries:
And what I experienced was that the leader the Secretary who is the apex. So, if those persons who have been given this responsibility of job or in executive position they will suggest them or they, how to say, if this executive person convince these ministries and secretaries in a well way, only then it can be done (MOLRM).
Findings from a 2015 UNDP evaluation of the focal points also called into question its efficacy. The review stated “…there is a question mark on the very existence of the Focal Point System in Nepal. The discussion with concerned authorities presented a very mixed and contrasting picture” and that “…efforts are still needed to institutionalise this system by the government ministries for its durability and sustainability in the long run (UNDP-Nepal 2015: 8).