Download HFA 2 Priorities from Nepal National and local governments, NGOs

HFA 2 Priorities from Nepal
National and local governments, NGOs, international organizations and stakeholder groups are invited to make succinct
contributions of maximum 5 pages, addressing the following questions:
Context
Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to natural disaster. 1 This vulnerability is due to a lack of technical
capacity and resources to adopt and implement resilience strategies. Political instability and the absence of locally elected
authorities have only compounded the challenges Nepal faces in strengthening disaster risk reduction at the national and local
level. In a country as complex as Nepal disaster risk management is the responsibility of all stakeholders. The Government has
firmly taken the lead in managing across sectors and in both the rural and urban context. Other stakeholders will be required to
support Government to advance all issues outlined below.
In support of its commitment to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), the Government of Nepal has made disaster risk
reduction a national priority. A new Disaster Management Act has been drafted to replace the 1982 Natural Calamities Relief
Act,and this Act will be prioritized once Parliament is re-convened. While the Act is in process, the Government has endorsed the
National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM), a long term strategic framework in line with HFA priorities and is
taking action to reform both policy and the legislative and institutional environment. In order to advance the NSDRM a
comprehensive approach to DRM has been adopted and priorities within the NSDRM have been agreed. Key to implementation is
the Government-led Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC)which has been established in order to ensure high-level national
coordination. Under the NRRC 13 Government Ministries, UN agencies, Red Cross, donors, the international financial
institutions, and I/NGO representation meet to plan and implement urgent and immediate actions in order to address agreed
priorities under the 5 Flagship programmes. Progress in the last 5 years has been substantial but much more is needed.
Specifically, Nepal needs to strengthen efforts in integrating climate and disaster risk management into broader development
plans. In addition, while progress has been strong with regard to inputs, progress from 2014 onwards will be measured in terms of
outputs and outcomes. The Government will ensure that HFA2 priorities will form the basis for design for NRRC Phase 2 (20152020).
Moving on from HFA1, the Government of Nepal is committed to HFA2 and believes that all 7 priority areas advocated for by
Area are important for Nepal. In consultation with other actors a commitment has been made to the following 3(out of 7) priority
areas for HFA2: ‘building community resilience’, ‘sustainable development, climate change and disaster risk reduction
integration’ and ‘ strengthening risk governance and accountability’. The Government believes that other priority areas can be
incorporated within the three chosen priorities and be designed as cross-areas areas for work.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Key Question: What is the issue that your country recommends to prioritise in HFA2?
The issues include:
- Communities still have limited capacity to understand, analyse, plan, mitigate, and respond to disasters
- Currently there is limited shared understanding on the concept, knowledge and process of building community resilience
in the rural and urban contexts. Tools are still being tested and need to be institutionalized.
- Integration of community based risk reduction, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery approaches within the
local government framework must be strengthened.
- A mechanism is required to undertake effective monitoring of DRM activity at the community level to better understand
the impact and sustainability of DRM activities.
- Promotion of an enhanced role for different groups of women in DRM and resilience building.
- Build awareness of the need for local level resource allocation from community side.
Why have you selected this as a priority?
Under HFA1, there have many good examples of community based DRM. However, these examples are isolated and the
challenges of harmonization, replication and sustainability remain. Community approaches are still too dependent on central
Government anddonor funding and are not yet effectively integrated into the national and local systems required for long term
sustainability. In particular, the issue of urban resilience has become of upmost importance with growing urban populations and
the increasing risk those populations live under. A standardized set of criteria (9 minimum characteristics of a disaster resilient
community) have been agreed largely based on rural experience, but further testing of this is needed particularly in the urban
context. Additional challenges include having a strong knowledge base, evidence of impact, monitoring and sustainability.
A comprehensive approach with a focus on gender and community groups (women, girls, young adults, older women, women
belonging to minority groups, etc.) in all phases of the planning process is needed to ensure gender issues are recognized and
1
Outdated statistics have placed Nepal as 4th most vulnerable to climate change, 11th most vulnerable to earthquake and 30th most vulnerable to floods. We believe
the risk is currently higher than this.
1
addressed. The Government has finalized a Climate Change and Gender Strategy and Action Plan which focuses on recognizing
the role of women in building resilience as well as outlining actions which need to be taken to ensure women can play their role
with focus on six key sectors. The strategy and action plan are awaiting final endorsement.
While HFA1 (2005-2015) emphasized the integration of gender into disaster programmes, Nepal is still in the process of ensuring
a gender sensitive approach to disaster risk management. A critical main challenge that needs to be addressed is gender
disaggregated data on disaster vulnerability and capacity that can inform the necessary policies and approaches to ensure that the
entire community is effectively engaged.
What are the actions required to address this issue?
Actions required include:
- Ensure effective engagement of Government at all levels and of private sector with community groups with particular
focus on the availability of insurance mechanisms to underpin resilience
- Document best community approaches. While work on this is already underway (coordinated under NRRC Flagship 4)
more must be done re documentation, validation, sharing, and then utilization of knowledge gained.
- Institute a Government High Level Policy Taskforce to ensure harmonization of local level disaster management
policies.Develop a guideline to validate good practices and promote replication
- Capacity building on identifying risks, response planning,planning for risk management, and local level implementation
Ensure harmonization of risk sensitive land use planning with line ministries, local government and community plans
- Sustain and upgrade community based early warning systems in agreed priority river basins
- Develop, validate and harmonise tools and guidelines for risk assessment, risk maps, management planning, integrating
climate and disasters. All data should be open access and coherent.
- Risk management plans should be incorporated into local level development priorities and plans to ensure that risk
reduction actions get sufficient traction and funding at the local levels.
- Strengthen data collection methods to ensure information is disaggregated and accessible. Compile good practice of
women led DRM activities.
- Ensure a critical mass of women for representation in all DRM forums and other key positions
- Promote specific and targeted actions to promote women into leadership roles as a force for building resilience
- Support and promote women led activities and projects with a focus on livelihoods diversification
- Ensure women’s access to resources, technology and early warning
List the stakeholders who should be engaged in implementing the recommendations made above
GovernmentMinistries will lead and will involve all other Government agencies (national, district, VDC, and community-ward
level)
Support will be provided from UN agencies, I/NGOs, Red Cross and Red Crescent, donors, civil society, private sector, academia,
user groups, and the media.
Mechanisms to be adopted:
- The current coordination mechanisms under Flagship 4 (led by MOFALD and IFRC) and Flagship 5 (led by MOHA and
UNDP) should be furthered strengthened and institutionalized within the Government system.
- The MOHA-led DRR portal will be utilized to ensure comprehensive communication and receive feedback.
- The Government intends to institute a post-Disaster Assessment Guideline.
How should this issue be addressed in HFA2?
What could be the accountability framework to address this issue in HFA?
- As per the Natural Calamities Relief Act and the Local Self-Governance Act (LSGA), DDC, and VDCs should become
increasingly accountable for ensuring institutionalization however this will require capacity to be enhanced in planning,
integration, coordination, and monitoring. Accountability provisions under LSGA and other frameworks needs to be
strengthened and frameworks must be made coherent. Government is already working on the latter issue under the
Government Policy Task Force – district level DRM guidelines harmonisation.
Who needs to be accountable to take the recommended actions?
- Government (through the framework of the LSGA, LSGR, NDRF, Soil and Water Conservation Act) and local
authorities. Supported by UN agencies (through the Framework of the UNDAF), INGOs, National Red Cross Society,
NGOs, CBOs.
Who will the actors be accountable to?
- Actors will be accountable at community level (community and community based organizations, disaster management
committees at local level, ward citizen forums, etc.) and through increased awareness through open access data.
2
What targets and indicators could be used to measure progress and underpin accountability measures?
- Targets: risk assessment map (multi-hazard risks) should be developed at national level and at vulnerable districts; nonlife insurance needs to incorporate DRM; agreement on a harmonized risk sensitive land use plans across Government
agencies; harmonize management planning guidelines at local levels; agree on modality for accessing funds and
implementation of DRM actions at local levels within the local governance framework; implementation of strong
mechanisms for monitoring and knowledge sharing.
- Indicators: National level risk assessment and manual of good practices are available; guidelines developed; utilization of
harmonized risk sensitive land use plan in line ministry planning; crops, livestock, water, school, health and livelihoods
related infrastructure insurance system in place. Establishment of the post-Disaster Assessment Guideline.
How can these targets and indicators be monitored and measured?
- The targets and the indicators will be monitored through the CNDRC, the existing monitoring framework(updated
Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines of NPC) and MOFALD. This will be further strengthened through harmonization.
Key Area 2: Sustainable development, climate change and disaster risk reduction integration
Key Question: Where, at what level and how has the integration of DRM, climate change and sustainable development proved
more efficient and effective?
Underlying question: what are the barriers for achieving integration at the national and local levels and how have they been
addressed?
At the national level, climate and disaster risk issues yet to be prioritized by key decisions makers, particularly from national
political parties. The focus has only slowly been moving from response to comprehensive risk reduction, mitigation and
preparedness. In addition, individual ministries, donors and agencies work in isolation which limits the ability to adopt a common
and integrated approach. More coordination between line Ministries, MOHA, MOFALD, MOSTE and NPC on this issue is
required. Underpinning this is a lack of assessments and tools to project and identify the economic impacts of climate change and
disasters is impeding the development of appropriate risk sensitive interventions. Finally however, while the NSDRM focuses on
risk reduction and mainstreaming of DRM, in the absence of the proposed DRM Act the reforms to the existing legal and
institutional framework necessary to facilitate mainstreaming cannot happen. A more general understanding of the linkages
between disaster management and climate change is required. The Government intends that disaster management should become a
window through which climate change can be more broadly understood.
Underlying question: What are the instruments available that are/could be used to facilitate integration?
There are some key instruments at the policy level available. These include the existing NSDRM, Land Use Policy 2013,
Approach Paper of National Development Plan (2013-2015), National Disaster Response Framework, climate change policy
2010, guidelines and tools for Climate and DRM integration such as the Local Disaster Risk Management Guidelines, District
Disaster Management Plan, Local Adaptation Plan of Action, National Adaptation Programme of Action 2008, Climate Budget
Code 2012, etc. However, many of these instruments have not yet been implemented effectively.Harmonization of the current
planning processes will be keys to strengthening implementation.
Underlying question: How can the existing instruments be better used or scaled up to facilitate integration?
The government will: lead the process of aligning the existing planning processes to ensure integration of risk reduction and
development; enact disaster management bill and bylaws for implementation of NSDRM, building codes and land use policy;
ensure dedicated resources at all levels; engage private sector; update existing building codes and development flood and landslide
codes; establish a Climate and Disaster Risk Cell within the NPC and enhancethe focal point system within key Ministries and
Departments. More joint action, led by MOHA and MOSTE, on climate change and DRM will ensure integrated planning,
national budget allocations, and joint advocacy to influence national and sectoral policies.The new climate and gender strategy is
yet to be endorsed.
Underlying question: How can the instrument be used to address the issues of trans-boundary risks?
Greater emphasis will be needed on regional Climate and DRM initiatives and should be coordinated with strategic emphasis from
MOHA, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and (where appropriate) SAARC. In addition, regional network and communities across
boundaries should be engaged on issues related to information and knowledge exchange on floods, GLOFs, and EWS and this
work should be supported by both MOHA and MOSTE. In the South Asia Region we not only share a common culture but also
share risk and atmosphere therefore it is essential that we have a coherent and collective policy on disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaption.
Who should be responsible for the different aspects of integration?
MOHA, MOFALD, MOSTE, NPC, local bodies and relevant line Ministries and Departments.
Partners will support all action and, ICIMOD in particular will offer support with regard to trans-boundary risks.
3
Mechanisms to be adopted: strengthening of the Government Focal Person system for DRM/CCA in key Ministries and
Departments is required. NPC has initiated integration of DRM into national and sectoral development plans which needs further
efforts at national level and for District councils to progress at District level . UNDAF Outcome 7 co-ordination mechanism cochaired by MOHA and MOSTE allows integration of Climate and DRM at central level whilethe mechanisms such DDRC (led by
CDO) and DDMC (led by LDO) facilitates integration of the two at district levels. Phase 2 of the NRRR needs to ensure
integration with climate adaption activity.
Who should they be accountable to and how to ensure accountability?
- A mandatory provision is required to integrate climate change adaptation and DRM into sectoral and periodic plans and
implementation. This would include financial provision with separate budget headings for disaster and climate change.
- Open access to information should be mandatory to facilitate two-way information sharing with a complaint/feedback
mechanism in place.
- LSGA and LSGR, which include monitoring, supervision, reporting, auditing of account and project appraisals and
evaluation needs to be adapted to fit DRM programming.
What targets and indicators at the national and local levels could be used to measure progress and underpin accountability?
- Targets: disaster risk reduction integration in national and local planning process; the Disaster Management Act should
be in place; sectoral plans should have a clear articulation of Climate and DRM related activity based on an analysis of
the impact of climate and disasters for key sectors; annual plans at national and local level fully integrate Climate and
DRM priorities and receive funding from the Treasury; involvement of private sector in disaster risk management;
review building codes and develop flood and landslide codes.
- Indicators: increase in current funding levels for climate and DRM, DRM integration in sectoral and local plans; disaster
management act implemented; private sector involvement in national platform for DRM; building code implemented
flood and landslide codes developed. The Government has drafted a Climate Change and Gender which must be fully
endorse, disseminated, and implemented.
How can these targets and indicators be monitored and measured?
- Existing tools, such as the National Monitoring and Evaluation and other relevant guidelines will be used to monitor the
indicators.
- MOSTE-headed Multi-sectoral Climate Change Coordination Committee
- MOHA-led NRRC Steering Committee
Key Area 3: Strengthening risk governance and accountability
Key Question: How to strengthen risk governance mechanisms and accountabilities for DRM and resilience building?
Underlying question: What are the main gaps in the existing risk governance models? What are the required measures to fill these
gaps?
- Lack of mandatory monitoring mechanisms of existing risk governance models or access to information related to
climate and disaster risk management
- Lack of resources, monitoring or feedback mechanism
- Limited bylaw in place for the implementation of disaster risk management
- Currently particular institutions are focused on sectoral issues in isolation and must reorient themselves to understand
comprehensive risk governance mechanism and accountability.
Measures to fill gaps
When the Disaster Management Act is passed, there will be mandatory annual reporting requirements from all departments on
plans and actions related to risk identification, risk assessment and risk reduction. These reports would be submitted to the Prime
Minister’s Office, National Planning Commission, and National Disaster Management Authority (when established).This also
needs to be part of performance assessments for government civil servants.
In the absence of the DRM Act and the NDMA mechanism, the internal Government mechanism relies on the Central Natural
Disasters Relief Committee (CNDRC) and District Disaster Relief Committee (DDRC) to ensure authorization for implementation
and monitoring. Focus of these mechanisms has historically been on response and (more recently also on preparedness for
response). Strengthening will require internal Government oversight, coordination, (and ability to ensure enforcement), at the
same level on national standards on areas related to broader DRM issues such a DRM financing through line Ministries, national
building code, and early recovery and so on.
How do we define the accountability framework for DRM and what should be the main components for an effective
accountability framework? Who should be responsible?
4
The accountability framework for DRM must ensure a two-way reporting system that ultimately links the responsible authority
with the target group (communities).
Mechanisms to be adopted
Note: further consideration is required within the Government of the mandate of the CNDRC and DDRC with regard to broader
DRM. Any change to this must be taken after the Government takes a view on how long it may be before passing the new Act. If
the Government considers that this may be soon then it may not be necessary to address the mandate of the CNDRC.
- MOHA-led DRR Portal will facilitate more coherent information sharing and guidance.
- National Platform for DRM led by Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) – this will act as an inclusive and loose
framework that will bring the above stakeholders together. From this network, smaller groups (representatives) will be
established for specific categories and issues. Government agencies will be responsible for implementing the activities.
UN Agencies, I/NGOs, Private Sectors, Academia will be the supporting agencies to implement the activities. Disaster
Preparedness Network (DPNet Nepal), secretary of the Platform will play a secretariat role in coordination with MoHA.
- Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC) – under the 2nd phase of the NRRC (2015-2020), a review and realigning of
priorities can be linked with this key area and include the appropriate monitoring and evaluation framework in place to
report against this key area.
- Accountability Framework: Ministries with a focus on gender and community groups should be involved in all phases of
the planning process to ensure gender issues are appropriately integrated into DRM programmes. This would include
revisiting existing policies, legislation, programmes, strategies and tools to ensure gender issues are incorporated. This
will be done in line with the convention on the rights of women and children.
How can targets and indicators be used to support accountability?
- Targets: Disaster Management Act implemented; National Planning Commission effectively monitoring DRM in Nepal;
National DRM platform strengthened in coordination and information sharing; climate and gender strategy and action
plan finally endorsed, disseminated, and implemented.
Indicators: Disaster Management Act passed when supporting policy developed; Monitoring tools and guidelines for
DRM with capacity in place at National Planning Commission; National Platform for DRM in place and functioning
effectively as a loose network. Creation of an enabling environment and strengthening of capacity within government
agencies to support the integration of gender perspective in DRM planning, policies and programmes
What monitoring and reporting mechanisms are required?
The existing monitoring mechanisms for DRM in Nepal needs to be strengthened by incorporating accountability measures that
links the responsible authorities with target groups at the local level. To complete this, the capacity of line ministries needs to be
strengthened with both financial and human resources. In addition, the national monitoring and evaluation guidelines (2013) need
to be implemented with dedicated resources allocated.
Mechanisms to improve communication are already being put in place including the creation of a new MOHA portal on DRM.
Further strengthening is required including more systematic work with traditional and new media. This latter activity will be
supported by the NRRC cross-Flagship communications group.
Who needs to be accountable and to whom?
The responsible agencies and supporting agencies for implementing their respective role in disaster risk management need to be
responsible to the targeted communities. Hence the focus on enhancing media engagement.
5