Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal

Government of Nepal Ministry of Federal Aff airs and General Administration Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal Opportuniti es for Building Capaciti es of Municipal Governments for Disaster Risk Reducti on and Management May 2019 Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal v Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal Executive Summary Nepal’s 2015 constitution set the course for a major shift of power from the Federal to the Provincial and Municipal levels of government. The constitution places the responsibility for ‘Disaster Management’ with local governments. Disaster management is also on the concurrent list for all three jurisdictions and ‘early preparedness for rescue, relief and rehabilitation’ is on the concurrent list for federal and state jurisdictions. The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act, 2017 and the Local Government Opeartion Act (LGOA), 2017 include a comprehensive list of disaster management actions for local governments. The DRRM Act integrates all key components of disaster risk reduction and management including measures for risk assessment, investments for risk reduction, strengthening disaster risk governance, preparedness for effective response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The municipal governments recognize the significance of DRRM as they are often at the forefront of disaster response and recovery. Municipalities affected by the 2015 earthquakes and 2017 floods are more active compared to the ones not affected by recent disaster events. Further, all 753 local governments require preparing their Municipal act, policy and action plan for DRRM in addition to numerous other local acts, policies and operational guidelines. The municipal elected representatives and the staff often have a limited understanding on DRRM concepts, technical capacities and finances to undertake disaster risk reduction actions. It is timely and important to consider the municipal governments’ capacities and responsibilities to help operationalize the DRRM Act, 2017. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) - UN Migration Agency carried out an assessment to analyse and assess existing strength, capacity, resources and understanding of elected representatives and staff of municipal governments to operationalize DRRM Act, 2017. This study aims to provide an overview of needs and capacities at the municipal level in the context of new legislative changes in Nepal and for the implementation of the National Strategic Action Plan for DRRM 2018-2030. A total of fourteen municipalities in all seven provinces of Nepal were assessed, making it an extensive analysis and is first of such assessment done on DRRM in Nepal. The municipal capacity assessment methodology and process serves as an example to scale up in other remaining municipalities. Assessed, in detail, are four areas of needs and capacities, responsibility for local governments to DRRM actions. a) Knowledge on the concepts of DRRM and disaster risk legislations at municipal level; b) Understanding of disaster risk, economic and well-being losses; c) Promotion of public and private investment for resilient development; and d) Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, recovery, reconstruction using ‘build back better’ techniques; A. Knowledge on the Concepts of DRRM and Disaster Risk Legislations at the Municipal Level A.1 Findings from the assessment • There is limited understanding among elected leaders and municipal staff on comprehensive DRRM and the legislative changes that has taken place in the recent 2-3 years. Exceptions such as Biratnagar (Province 1) and Dhangadhi (Province 7) where understanding exists better compared to other municipalities. vi Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal • Only two out of fourteen municipalities assessed have developed their local DRRM Act. • Only two municipalities have prepared their Disaster Management Fund Operational Guideline. A few have started their preparation process while the remaining are unaware. • Review of recently endorsed municipal legislative documents –such as the local DRRM Act and the DM Fund Operational Guideline– have shown that there have been missed opportunity in helping municipalities make them effective and reflective of the municipal risk levels. Endorsed act and guidelines are exact copies of the sample act and guideline prepared and shared by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration. In the absence of a comprehensive understanding of DRRM, the municipal Disaster Management Fund Operational Guideline, prepared on the basis of the national guideline for Disaster Management Fund Guideline Sample (approved by MoFAGA) does not include provisions for utilizing funds for risk reduction or recovery activities. Existing provisions are only meant for disaster response. • Only a few municipalities have formulated their Municipal DRRM Committees including Ward Level Committees and have set up their DRRM Fund. None of the municipalities have prepared their DRRM Policy, DRRM Strategic Action Plan or integrated disaster risk considerations into sectoral plans. • There are no established coordinating systems and platform for DRRM among the municipal, private sector, I/NGOs. • Most urban municipalities have systems or are in the process of enforcing seismic building code. However, none of the municipalities have code and or regulation for flood risks and other hazards such as lightening, fire and wind storms. • Municipal governments are swamped in drafting and endorsing various local laws, policies and regulations. Drafting and endorsing DRRM laws and plans are behind sectoral and other operational priorities. • Disasters transcend municipal boundaries and often their hazards including risk reduction measures are effective in upstream and or neighbouring municipalities requiring collaboration and joint action between municipalities that are least understood. • Only few municipal staff – such as the DRRM focal person in urban municipalities – have received training(s) on DRRM. A.2 Opportunities: Supporting the Municipal Governments for a Comprehensive Understanding of DRRM, Legislative Changes and in the Preparation of Municipal Disaster Risk Legislations • It is a ‘Moment of maximum opportunity’ (MOMO) to build capacity of elected municipal leaders and municipal staff to design and implement robust local DRRM Act, policies and plans including integration of disaster risk into respective sectoral development plans. • The ‘model municipal law’ and the ‘DM fund guideline’ approach has helped some municipalities to quickly draft and endorse their laws. However, these legislative documents have been prepared without a clear understanding of the local risks. It is timely to orient the municipal governments on legislative changes and on a comprehensive understanding of disaster risks. • Orientation on the roles and responsibilities of federal, provincial and municipal governments including ‘horizontal and vertical collaboration’ and joint DRRM actions among different development sectors, multiple municipalities and with provincial and federal agencies. • Orientation on planned engagement and coordination with neighbouring municipalities as well as with the provincial government and federal ministries and departments. vii Needs and Capacity Assessment of Fourteen Rural and Urban Municipalities on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Nepal B. Understanding of Disaster Risk, Economic and Well-being Losses B.1 Findings from the assessment • There is no disaster risk information available in any of the fourteen municipalities assessed. Except for Birendranagar Municipality, none of the municipalities have undertaken municipal level hazard assessment. Exposure and vulnerability information are not available. There has been no past effort in assessing multi-hazard risk, their probable economic and well-being losses. • The concept of ‘risk assessment’ and Risk Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP) is like déjà vu to all municipalities. Interestingly, risk assessments have not been undertaken even in high earthquake and flood risk municipalities (such as Bhimeshwor or Gulariya). Hazard assessment for some wards have been completed (an example from Neelakantha), but results are not available within the municipality for subsequent update or use for sectoral assessments. • Disaggregated data on gender, caste, persons with disabilities (PWDs), elderly and children exists in all municipalities. However, there is limited practice and knowledge in integrating them into development planning including DRRM. • In three municipalities, it was observed that families were displaced due to disasters. In the case of landslide and flood related disasters, measures were taken to resettle households within the community. However, in case of drying of water sources, families have tendency to go for seasonal migration or when the situation further degrades, families are displaced permanently. It was observed that there are no systems to track seasonal and permanent displacements induced by disasters. • None of the municipalities have systems to screen or to assess disaster risk for their sectoral investments. • With an exception of Dhangadhi and Gulariya

Load more