Transcript Linking Disaster to Development: The Case of Community

Linking Disaster to Development:
The Community-led Disaster
Management in Nepal
Man B. Thapa
Disaster Management Programme
UNDP Nepal
Nepal
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
Seismic Hazard of Nepal
Map courtesy: National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines
and Geology, Lainchor, Kathmandu, Nepal
The Economic Losses due to Various
Natural Disasters in Nepal
Disaster
Deaths
Loss
Loss as
(in mNR) % GDP
Dev
Loss as
expend
% of
(in mNR) 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
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
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)
Continue….

Linking with other development actors,

Transforming groups/ SGCOs as NGOs
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

Activities
Continue …….
 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
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
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
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
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
Thank you