Few days after the April 25 earthquake, the Government of Nepal submitted the proposed Disaster Management Bill to Parliament for approval. The process of drafting the Bill had been initiated in 2006 by the National Centre for Disaster management on behalf of organisations working in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The draft went through several rounds of consultations and revisions, and efforts were made to align it with the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal, endorsed by the government in 2010.

Law in action is the key aspect of all types of public policy processes, including DRR. Though a disaster-prone country, Nepal had no Disaster Response Act till the early 1980s. In 1982, The Natural Calamity Relief Act was formulated as the principal legislation relating to disaster risk reduction. The Act went through revisions in 1989, 1993 and 1998, but its focus remained on rescue and relief. This Act was still operational when the Great Quake struck Nepal. Clearly, its provisions were inadequate to address the challenges in the wake of this disaster as the chaotic rescue and relief efforts in the affected districts demonstrated.

Should the Parliament approve the proposed Bill in its current form or revise it? Given the widespread impact of the recent earthquake, it would be appropriate for Parliament to review the draft for its strength and gaps before it is approved as a law. An analysis of the contents of the proposed Bill and its salient features are appropriate starting points for conceptualising the nature of revisions that can be incorporated to make  DRR more effective.

Shortcomings abound

The proposed Bill captures the spirit of disaster management principles and practices. It does reflect the level of wide consultations held at various stages of its formulation. But it possesses shortcomings as well, one of which is the preamble itself. Preamble is the key to the existence of any act, as it reflects objectives of the act. But the preamble of the proposed Act does not recognise the link between poverty, sustainable development and equity. This is despite the fact that preliminary assessments of the post-disaster loss has shown that hundreds of thousands of families have been pushed back into the vicious circle of poverty and that gender and social exclusion were among the primary sources of vulnerability. The preamble also does not reflect all the steps of DRR including preparedness, rescue, relief and recovery and reconstruction.

The proposed Bill also has flaws in terms of conceptualising the institutional framework. It has proposed the National Disaster Management Council (NDMC) as the apex body under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister with the Minister of Home Affairs as his deputy. All the 18 ministers representing different ministries are included as members. The vice chairman of the National Planning Commission, chief secretary of the government of Nepal and chief of the Nepal Army are other members. the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Moha) would function as the member secretary of the Council. The NDMC will have two independent experts nominated by the government who, as per the Bill, can be relieved of their responsibility if they do not perform their duty. The inclusion of these two experts, however, appears to be tokenism. In any case, the role the two could play in a powerful Council is anybody’s guess. Instead, the Bill could suggest that the NDMC would constitute a body of independent experts drawn from different disciplines to provide inputs as and when necessary.

Police and opposition left out  

The Bill also does not include the chiefs of the Nepal Police and the Armed Police in its Council. This is a glaring omission because the responsibility for certifying an individuals’ death during a disaster rests with the Nepal Police, while the Armed Police plays an important role in rescue and relief. Similarly, there is no space for the leader of the main opposition party in the council. This provision, in fact, contradicts the provision in the National Strategy for Disaster that has proposed the leader of the main opposition party as the deputy chair of the Council.

The Bill proposes three committees, namely the Executive Committee, which will be under the leadership of the Minister for Home Affairs; the Disaster Risk Reduction Committee, led by the Minister for Federal Affairs and Local Development; and the Disaster Recovery Committee, which will be under the leadership of the Minister for Urban Development.

The Bill has also proposed a Disaster Management Centre (DMC) under the Home Ministry. This is another huge flaw of the Bill. Disaster management is a multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary task and should not be entrusted only to the Home Ministry because, structurally, the ministry is guided by the responsibilities of maintaining law and order rather than managing interdisciplinary activities. The National Disaster Risk Management Authority (NDRMA) should be an independent body answerable to the Council. NDRMA should function as a secretariat for the Council, and its executive director should be selected through open and free competition.

Four-tiered bill

The Bill’s institutional framework has four tiers.  In addition to the Council and DMC at the centre, it has proposed a Regional Disaster Management Committee (RDMC) under the leadership of a regional administrator, District Disaster Management Committee (DDMC) under the leadership of a chief district officer and a Local Disaster Management Committees (LDMC) at every VDC. The Bill, however, is silent about the composition of the DDMC and LDMC. This omission can create a room for subjectivity and raise questions about the utility of the Regional Disaster Committee.

The provision of the Disaster Management Fund is another important feature of the Bill. However, the authority to mobilise the Fund is given to the Council. This provision can lead to institutional confusions. The Council should be given the authority to mobilise funds. The Bill makes no mandatory provisions to establish the DMF at the district and local levels, limiting the decentralisation of and roles for local entities.  

Sendai Framework

Issues of gender and social inclusion are also missing from the proposed Bill, despite the fact that the Sendai Framework on DRR (2015-2030), adopted by the Third United Nations World Conference on DRR, highlights the importance of participation of different groups in the formulation and implementation of disaster management policies and legislations.

Working closely with civil society, academia, media, scientific and research institutions, the Bill should be revised from all these perspectives. Also, while the Bill authorises the Executive Committee to set the minimum standards for the relief material, it is silent about the minimum standard for recovery and reconstruction. Given that 50 percent loss in the April 25 earthquake is attributed to shelters, the Act should recognise people’s right to safe, livable shelter as a prerequisite and set the minimum standard for their reconstruction. The Bill also makes no provision for the protection and reconstruction of the cultural heritage sites damaged by a disaster.  

Despite all these shortcomings the proposed Bill creates a useful foundation to build future legislations on. Though registered in Parliament, it is not yet ready for approval because the lessons of the April quake are yet to be gleaned and used to provide inputs to reforming the proposed Bill.

Pokhrel is an advocate and coordinator of Water Resources and Hydropower Committee, Nepal Bar Association