Abstract
This article aims to explain various disaster governance paradigms that have emerged and currently exists in Nepal. A disaster governance paradigm is a comprehensive set of prevailing and institutionalized ideas that shape disaster plans and policies that eventually are implemented on-the-ground. Nepal has prepared various disaster plans and policies at the national, provincial and local level, but there are major gaps in disaster risk preparedness, with annual floods and landslides continuing to be responsible for the loss of lives and heavy infrastructure damages. In this article, we show how disaster governance paradigms have evolved between 1982 and 2019, using policy document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key policy actors. The study found that four major disaster governance paradigms exist in Nepal – (1) response and recovery; (2) disaster risk reduction and management; (3) integrated climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction; and (4) federalized disaster risk reduction. The results of this study show that multiple state and non-state actors such as key government ministries, NGOs, INGOs and other civil society actors are competing over resources and there is an ongoing administrative struggle for promoting different disaster governance paradigms. There has been a push from various civil society actors to prioritize disaster risk reduction in Nepal. Finally, we conclude that it is too early to assert that the decentralization process will be able to reduce disaster risk for vulnerable communities, especially with the federalization of Nepal's disaster governance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 101911 |
| Journal | International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction |
| Volume | 50 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Department for International Development (DFID) under the United Kingdom Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience (SHEAR) program (Grant Number NE/P000452/1). The authors are also indebted to Practical Action team who made the data collection possible. Lastly, we would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for making constructive comments on the previous drafts of this manuscript.
Funding Information:
Second, our respondents mentioned that many policy actors, including the government of Nepal is disappointed with the financial support on climate change issues. Nepal prepared necessary legislative instruments to implement CCA, but there was insufficient funding from the international donor agencies and green climate fund (GCF). Only one national agency, Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) could qualify the accreditation process of GCF. Moreover, Nepal could not qualify as a national implementing entity (NIE) for adaptation fund due to stringent criteria. GCF guidelines are strict and require strict adherence to corruption charges and accountability. Nepal currently ranks 113 out of 180 countries and does not have a history of stable political and administrative structure (Transparency International, 2020). Considering such criteria, Nepal failed to qualify for NIE status. Based on our interviews we suggest a lack of funding for climate change adaptation leads to the loss of trust among Nepal's policy actors and contributed further to the change in disaster governance paradigm.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s)
Keywords
- Disaster governance paradigms
- Federalization in Nepal
- Framing
- Paradigm change
- Policy goals and instruments
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
- Safety Research
- Geology
