Institutional mechanisms

South Asian countries—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—have different mechanisms and policies to reduce disaster risk. Three distinct types of institutional mechanisms are in place—a separate ministry to look after disaster management (Bangladesh and  Sri Lanka); independent disaster management authority working directly under the president or prime minister (Afghanistan, India, Maldives, and Pakistan); and the Ministry of Home Affairs looking after disaster management from a post-disaster perspective (Bhutan and Nepal). These three types of institutional mechanisms have their own strengths and areas that they can improve upon. As in many other cases, a single institution may not be able to address all challenges.  

Likewise, the disaster management policies of these countries also have different focuses. However, one important aspect to note here is that South Asian nations have enacted disaster management policies only after facing major disasters. In Sri Lanka, for example, the Disaster Management Act was pending at Parliament for several years and enacted within a few weeks’ after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.The Act enabled the country to establish a separate ministry to look after disaster management. Similarly, the 2001 Gujarat earthquake and the 2004 tsunami made political leaders and policymakers rethink their disaster management policies and institutional mechanisms in India.

Unfortunately, this paradigm shift (policy, institutional mechanisms, and capacity development) from a post-disaster to a disaster risk reduction perspective in the region and outside is occurring only after the loss of several thousand lives and unprecedented amounts of physical, social, and economic resources. So, Nepal must learn from these fatal disasters in neighbouring countries and work to immediately enact a pragmatic Disaster Manage-ment Act that addresses current disaster threats linked to  climate change and aim to enhance the resilience of Nepalis to cope with, and to emerge from future disaster scenarios.

A new law

The existing 1982 Natural Calamity Relief Act is inadequate to address the current challenges posed by disasters and climate change in Nepal. It focuses only on relief and response. In contrast, other countries in the region and outside have already proved that disaster risk reduction is doable, cost-effective, and sustainable. Nepal is one of pioneering countries in the region on community-based disaster management (CBDM), where disaster- prone communities have implemented successful disaster managment activities and minimised future disaster risks. Such small-scale CBDM can only be scaled-up and institutionalised if there is a Disaster Management Act that addresses such issues along with a dedicated institution. Nepal must learn from its recent disasters (2013 floods in the West, Sunkoshi landslide, snow avalanche etc.) and disasters in the past (1993 flood in central Nepal) and act proactively to reduce future disaster risk  rather than spending limited financial resources on replacing costly post-disaster losses.

Since the early 1990s, discussions after any disaster in Nepal have dwelled on issues such as weak coordination, poor political commitment on risk reduction, weak leadership, lack of trained human resource and the absence of a dedicated institution to look after disaster management in the country.

Nepal must not wait for any fatal disasters in the future to enact a comprehensive and pragmatic Disaster Manage-ment Act and to establish a dedicated and authorised institution as in case of several South Asian countries. It should instead draft a pragmatic Disaster Management Act, establish a dedicated institution and raise its technical and functional capacity to address the challenges holistically and to enhance the resilience of all Nepalis.

Thapa is Programme Specialist, Comprehesive Disaster Management Programme, UNDP Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal.