Linking Disaster to Development: The Community-led Disaster Management in Nepal

1. Linking Disaster to Development:The Community-led Disaster Management in Nepal Man B. Thapa Disaster Management Programme UNDP Nepal

2. Nepal

3. Content • Why we need to link disaster to development? • Community-led disaster management in Nepal • Linking disaster to development: a success story • Where should we go from here • Conclusion

4. Seismic Hazard of Nepal Map courtesy:National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines and Geology, Lainchor, Kathmandu, Nepal

7. Disaster Deaths Loss (in mNR) Loss as % GDP Dev expend (in mNR) Loss as % of dev exp. 1987 Floods 881 6,922 9 7,071 98 1988 Earthq 1,684 19,141 21 9,247 207 1989 Fire 1,716 11,903 12 9,748 122 1993 Floods 1,524 10,112 5 15,891 64 1996 Floods 892 2,312 0.8 19,907 12 The Economic Losses due to Various Natural Disasters inNepal

8. Why we need to link disaster to development? • Nepal is a disaster prone country • Disaster has been dealt partially and in isolation • Several development initiatives have been affected by different kinds and forms of disasters • Annually about 20% of GDP is being lost due to disasters • Annually about 260 people are killed by disaster and about 30,000 families affected • Due to flawed disaster management, the ratio of killed to affected population in Nepal is the highest in the whole of South Asian Region

9. Community-led disaster management in Nepal • Background • Isolated/inaccessible communities • Resources constraints • Community selection based on the magnitude of vulnerability • Formation of groups/SGCOs • Programme design with due recognition to the local knowledge, implementation and PME • Financial transaction (Transparency and accountability)

10. Continue…. • Linking with other development actors, • Transforming groups/ SGCOs as NGOs

11. Linking disaster to development: a success story • Site/ community selection • Group formation (male/female/political parties/ majority/minority • Inputs to the group/SGCO (technical/financial) • Community contribution mandatory • Participatory monitoring and evaluation • Peer communication

12. Continue ……. • Activities • River training (spurs, drainage – bioengineering) • Large scale plantation and community forest protection-zero grazing • Natural growth of vegetation • Sale of grasses (stall feeding) • Purchase of milch animals • Milk collection center • Creation of picnic spot • Family fish pond construction • Apiculture • Nursery establishment • Strengthening institutional capacity • Small and cost-effective infrastructure

13. Continue ….. • Future activities • More income generating activities to women for their empowerment • Establishment of bio-gas plants, improved cooking stoves • Large scale mulberry plantation for sericulture, fodder and flood control • Large scale bamboo and cane plantation for cottage industry

14. Innovations offer hope for future • Appropriate policy • New concepts and planning tools • Partnerships • Living with disaster (Upgrading coping mechanisms) • Community involvement for local ownership, cost-effectiveness and sustainability

15. Conclusion • An integrated approach for DM must be adopted for long term sustainable development • Activities must be designed with local people and identification of an entry point and exit strategy must be shared with local people • Clear delineation of community (male/female) roles and responsibilities from the very outset • The form and extent of communities’ contribution should be decided at the very beginning

16. Continue… • A clear sketch of road map for linking disaster to development should be designed at the beginning • Priority should be given to activities which can be of immediate benefit to the community • Priority should be given to those activities which reduce the future vulnerability of the area

17. Thank you