1. Linking Disaster to Development: The Community-led Disaster Management in Nepal Man B. Thapa Disaster Management Programme UNDP Nepal

2. Nepal

3. 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

4. Seismic Hazard of Nepal Map courtesy: National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines and Geology, Lainchor, Kathmandu, Nepal Map courtesy: National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines and Geology, Lainchor, Kathmandu, Nepal

7. The Economic Losses due to Various Natural Disasters in Nepal 19,907 15,891 9,748 9,247 7,071 Dev expend (in mNR) 12 64 122 207 98 Loss as % of dev exp. 0.82,312892 1996 Floods 510,1121,524 1993 Floods 1211,9031,716 1989 Fire 2119,1411,684 1988 Earthq 96,922881 1987 Floods Loss as % GDP Loss (in mNR) DeathsDisaster

8. 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

9. 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)

10. Continue ….  Linking with other development actors,  Transforming groups/ SGCOs as NGOs

11. 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

12. Continue …….  Activities  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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Thank you