Lessons Learned from Post-Earthquake Policy in Nepal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LESSONS LEARNED FROM POST-EARTHQUAKE POLICY IN NEPAL GUIDANCE FOR FURTHER HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY DISASTER AND RECONSTRUCTION LAW AND POLICY REFORM April 2019 LESSONS LEARNED FROM POST-EARTHQUAKE POLICY IN NEPAL GUIDANCE FOR FURTHER HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY DISASTER AND RECONSTRUCTION LAW AND POLICY REFORM April 2019 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary 6 II. Background to the Issues 12 III. Key Reflections 15 IV. Lessons from Other Countries 27 V. General Guidelines and Tools 38 VI. Recommendations 41 Selected Resources 49 Annexure 51 Annex 1 - Briefing Notes 51 Annex 2 - Checklist for Post-Disaster HLP Interventions 60 5 6 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Displacement Solutions was approached and commissioned by DFID to carry out research on the housing, land and property rights issues arising from the reconstruction process, with an emphasis on the planned relocation aspects thereof. Displacement Solutions undertook a three-person mission to Nepal in November 2018 during which time extensive interviews were carried out, field visits made, and film footage taken for the production of a short documentary film which has since been completed. Based on this methodology, this report focuses on aspects of progress to date related to survivors access to housing, land and property either at their homes of origin, or through various relocation and resettlement schemes underway since government led reconstruction work was initiated in late 2015.1 The baseline for this assessment and analysis will be a review of progress to date by the National Reconstruction Agency (NRA) ‘Durable Solutions’ project implemented by the Czech NGO ‘People in Need’ (PIN) in partnership with Community Self Reliance Centre (CSRC) with funding and technical support from DFID. Durable Solutions has the long-term objective of creating a national precedent and framework for the fair and voluntary relocation of citizens following natural disasters or because of structural landlessness, and in doing so provides support to the NRA which maintains overall responsibility for post-earthquake housing, land and property matters.2 The report also takes into account the 3 important work on geohazard mapping carried out by Durham University. 1 In particular, Displacement Solutions was asked explore the post-earthquake policies affecting IDPs, including the reconstruction policy of cash grants to geo-hazard / landslide-affected households, and how these policies affected the rights of those affected. The study will also examine policies affecting PDHs who may be relocated as part of the relocation grant process. In particular, it will explore the following questions: What happened in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake in terms of how IDPs affected by geo-hazards/landslides and PDHs were understood and managed? This will also take into consideration particularly vulnerable groups such as squatters, those with inadequate security of tenure protections, women, non-citizens, refugees and others?; How did pre-existing housing, land and property (HLP) laws and policies influence post-earthquake policy responses, and did these responses play any role in expanding rights protections to vulnerable groups?; How were post-earthquake policies actually implemented in practice? What obstacles - both predictable and unpredictable - were encountered and how were these addressed? What were the policy design limitations/gaps and the historical realities and perceptions of the periphery vis-à-vis the state and in which ways did these influence how centrally- driven policies have been received/implemented on the local level?; How do Nepal’s post-earthquake policies compare to those of other countries, both developed and developing, experiencing similar challenges?; What can be learned by others from the approaches taken in Nepal, and what can others learn from Nepal?; and On the basis of this experience, what measures might the Government of Nepal and international partners consider as it moves forward on developing laws and policies to deal with future disasters, including the Earthquake Geohazard relocation process? 2 For an overivew of these efforts, see: http://www.durablesolutionsnepal.org. 3 For an overview of these efforts, see: https://community.dur.ac.uk/nepal.2015eq/. On April 25, 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal. Following a second strong 7 earthquake on May 12 (7.3 magnitude), and a sequence of aftershocks, the Government of Nepal (GoN) reported the death toll at 8,700, while those injured reached 25,000. A Post- Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), completed in June 2015, found that total damages and losses amounted to about US$7 billion, with reconstruction needs of about US$6.7 billion. As the earthquake sequence destroyed 490,000 houses - mostly traditional mud-brick and mud-stone houses built and occupied by the rural poor - and rendered another 265,000 houses at least temporarily uninhabitable, the largest single need identified in the PDNA was housing and human settlements, accounting for US$3.27 billion or almost half of the total reconstruction needs. (Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, 2015) Much has been written about the various responses by the Government of Nepal, the international aid and NGO community, donors, and local non-governmental organizations to the 2015 earthquake that caused widespread death, destruction and displacement in 31 of Nepal’s 75 districts.4 The 2015 seismic events had a devastating impact on the country, resulting in large-scale displacement and the destruction or damage of some 900,000 homes. Government of Nepal policies, combined with donor, INGO and local NGO and CBO responses to the impact of the earthquake included the provision of reconstruction grants, determining the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs) forced from their damaged and destroyed homes and additional measures relating to the relocation and resettlement of communities residing in highly vulnerable areas. These and other policies were carried out within broader housing, land and property legal and policy contexts wherein significant portions of Nepali society were already living in precarious and inadequate conditions, and where the country was continuing to recover from a decade- long conflict and resultant fundamental changes to its political structures. While much has been acheived, despite the well-intended efforts of many actors (both governmental and non-governmental) as of April 2019, a considerable proportion of those who suffered housing, land and property losses as a result of the devastating 2015 earthquakes in Nepal remain inadequately housed. As a result, a range of important lessons can be learned from the reconstruction process which may have a bearing on relevant HLP laws, policies and practices in the near future. These form the foundations of the present report which addresses aspects of the government of Nepal’s responses to issues such as addressing rights to housing, land and property for displaced families, vulnerable groups, pre-and post-earthquake policy and legislation, alignment with international normative frameworks, what worked well and could be shared elsewhere, and what didn’t work and in future could be enhanced from experience elsewhere. 4 See, for instance, Care, Housing, Land and Property Issues in Nepal and their consequences for the post-earthquake process, Care Nepal, 2016; Government of Nepal, National Reconstruction Authority, Acts, Rules, Standards and Procedures Relating to Reconstruction, Singha Durbur Kathmandu; Oxfam, Building Back Right: Ensuring equality in land rights and reconstruction in Nepal, Joint Agency Briefing Paper, 21 April 2016; The Himalayan,Second grant tranche: 385,657 beneficiaries miss deadline, 10 September 2018, et al. Based on these lessons, and grounded in the sentiments expressed and rights contained 8 within the Nepal Constitution of 20155, this report posits 12 actionable recommendations to assist the Government of Nepal (and partners) as it moves forward on developing laws and policies to deal with future disasters, including the earthquake geohazard relocation process. The key recommendations outlined in Section VI below are summarized here: REC 1: PLAN AHEAD OF TIME – NEPAL NEEDS TO BE READY FOR THE NEXT DISASTER Action 1: Direct participation by survivors should be far more significant in guiding responses to disaster in particular those situations where relocation/resettlement are required. This should be included either as amendments to existing legal frameworks, or in new laws, regulations or official procedures; Action 2: More advanced regulatory systems under the new disaster laws being prepared should be guided by lessons emerging in Nepal since the 2015 earthquakes; and Action 3: The mandate conferred upon the NRA in the “Act Relating to Reconstruction of the Earthquake Affected Structures, 2015”, and in particular the “Procedure Relating to Registration of Land in the Name of Earthquake Affected Person, 2016”, specifically Article 3(2)(c) on landless survivors, should be conferred in legislation governing the new national disaster management agency, regulating the responsibilities of the Government of Nepal at all Federal levels. REC 2: WEAVE TENURE IMPROVEMENTS INTO DISASTER PLANNING AND RESPONSE PROCESSES Action 1: Dimension the scale and scope of loss of HLP rights and grievances by undertaking a preliminary assessment of HLP issues during IDP registration. This data provides a ‘placemarker’ registering these losses, and providing a consolidated