News

A discussion program aimed at providing feedback on strengthening the institutional capacity of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) was organized by DPNet on 2^nd December, 2024. The event, chaired by Dr. Raju Thapa, included Chief Guest Dr. Ganga Lal Tuladhar and notable participants such as former government secretaries Shankar Koirala and Kedar Neupane. Facilitated by Mr. Surya Bahadur Thapa IPP DPNet, the program brought together experts, stakeholders, and practitioners to analyze the challenges and opportunities within NDRRMA’s operations.

In his welcome remarks, Mr. Thapa highlighted the importance of institutional reforms to enhance the authority’s effectiveness. He outlined the program’s objectives, which focused on evaluating NDRRMA’s five-year journey, identifying gaps in its functionality, and gathering actionable recommendations for improvement.

Disaster Risk Reduction expert Bamshi Acharya presented a critical analysis of NDRRMA’s progress, revealing significant challenges that have hampered its ability to fulfill its mandate. Acharya’s presentation highlighted staffing issues, noting that the number of embedded staff had dwindled from 38 to 20, a reduction that has weakened the organization’s operational capacity. He also pointed out that NDRRMA has not facilitated to established an expert committee in five years, despite its critical role in disaster preparedness and response. The presentation also shed light on institutional gaps, such as the absence of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for NDRRMA, even though other all divisions and branch under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) have such SoP. Additionally, NDRRMA has not prepared annual reports, as mandated, raising concerns about accountability. Acharya noted that the organization lacks the authority to undertake reconstruction activities, a critical component that stakeholders argued should be added to its mandate. Coordination failures during major disasters, including the Jajarkot Earthquake and Monsoon flood 2024, were also discussed. Despite having early warning systems capable of providing 76 hours of advance notice, these were not utilized effectively. Similarly, the National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF), which mandates coordinated actions, was not followed adequately.

During the open floor discussion, participants shared various comments and recommendations regarding NDRRMA's role and effectiveness. Dr. Meen Bahadur Poudel Chhetri emphasized the adverse impact of unsustainable resource management, particularly the over-extraction of river materials, which significantly worsened monsoon-related devastation and relevant authority being mute spectator. He expressed strong criticism of NDRRMA, noting its minimal role since its inception and questioning its relevance. Dr. Chhetri suggested that dissolving NDRRMA could streamline disaster management efforts by reducing bureaucratic layers and saving resources, allowing for a more efficient and effective approach to disaster response and mitigation.

Former Secretary Shankar Koirala emphasized the need for high-profile leaders with the expertise to navigate its complexities. He recommended recruiting Secretary-level officials to helm the organization and called for better engagement with development partners, contrasting the authority’s current approach with MoHA’s proactive efforts during the 2015 earthquake. Koirala also cautioned against placing NDRRMA under the Prime Minister’s Office, arguing that it would introduce unnecessary bureaucratic layers and complicate disaster management operations. Koirala remarked that even an ideal NDRRMA Executive Chief would struggle to achieve a performance score of 60 out of 100 under the current structure, highlighting systemic limitations that need urgent attention. He also advocated for a service-oriented mindset among leadership, suggesting that senior officials should forgo personal benefits to inspire and motivate their teams.

Niva Shrestha highlighted the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities among government agencies during disaster response efforts. According to Shrestha, when disasters strike, multiple ministries and government agencies often convene separate meetings with development partners, each providing different instructions. This lack of coordination creates confusion and inefficiency during critical moments. Citing the September floods as a glaring example, Shrestha expressed disappointment in NDRRMA’s absence during the crisis, emphasizing its failure to provide leadership and direction when it was most needed

Laxmi Narayan Parajuli, took a broader perspective, proposing the creation of a dedicated disaster management ministry to address the existing coordination challenges. According to Parajuli, the fragmented structure of NDRRMA limits its effectiveness. He argued that a centralized ministry could better integrate disaster management efforts across federal, provincial, and local levels, ensuring a more cohesive and systematic approach.

Ratindra Khatri highlighted a fundamental issue within NDRRMA: its inability to distinguish between risk management and crisis management. Drawing on his decades of experience, starting with the 2045 BS earthquake and spanning disasters like the 2081 BS flood, Khatri expressed frustration at the recurring patterns of inefficiency and inaction. He described NDRRMA as little more than a transitional space for government staff, devoid of expertise and direction. The lack of technical specialists within the organization, according to Khatri, has left it without the capacity to address complex disaster scenarios. He stressed the urgent need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of NDRRMA to eliminate existing ambiguities and provide a clear framework for action.

Shyam Sundar Jnavaly called out the absence of a culture of accountability, which has allowed the NDRRMA to underperform without repercussions. He urged organizations like DPNet to take on a more proactive role as watchdogs, monitoring NDRRMA’s activities and providing regular feedback. According to him, the time for complacency is over; stakeholders must demand transparency and results from the institution rather than remaining passive observers.

The lack of progress in disaster response and recovery was a recurring theme, as articulated by Keshav Dutta Bhatta. Comparing the 2008 flood to the 2024 flood, Bhatta noted that despite the passage of over a decade, there have been no significant improvements in the way disasters are managed. He pointed NDRRMA’s disconnect from provincial governments, contrasting this with the previously strong coordination led by the MoHA. Bhatta emphasized the importance of engaging expert groups to guide disaster management strategies and questioned whether financial regulations allowed for the timely mobilization of funds. The inability to deploy disaster management funds within the first 24 hours of a crisis, he said, represents a critical failure in the system.

Bhubaneshwari Parajuli focused on the duplication of responsibilities across federal, provincial, and local levels. This overlap, she argued, creates confusion and inefficiency, with no single entity taking full responsibility for disaster management outcomes. Parajuli questioned whether the establishment of NDRRMA represented a step forward, suggesting that the pre-existing frameworks may have been more effective. She highlighted the high turnover of staff within NDRRMA, describing it as a revolving door that prevents the development of institutional memory or sustained expertise. According to Parajuli, the only way to address these deep-rooted issues is through the appointment of high-level leadership committed to driving meaningful change.

Januka Koirala pointed out a broader issue of accountability, asking whether stakeholders, including those criticizing NDRRMA, had provided adequate feedback to help the organization improve. She emphasized the importance of institutional memory and highlighted systemic gaps in operational practices.

Santona Devkota reflected on the technological advances available today compared to the 2015 earthquake, when there were no tools for online meetings or rapid communication. She acknowledged that when NDRRMA was first established, it introduced an effective communication system. However, she expressed disappointment that the authority had failed to leverage this technology to mobilize stakeholders during disasters. Devkota described NDRRMA as still being in its infancy, stressing that its relevance should not be dismissed due to its shortcomings. Instead, she urged stakeholders to focus on providing regular and constructive feedback to guide the organization’s reform and growth.

Lalit Bahadur Thapa raised concerns about legal bottlenecks that delay disaster response projects. He explained how projects require multiple layers of approval, starting from local governments to the Social Welfare Council (SWC) and finally NDRRMA, which often results in delays that render projects ineffective by the time they are cleared. Citing the example of the Doti flood in 2021, he shared how families in need of temporary shelter support were denied immediate assistance due to bureaucratic obstacles. He also noted the absence of a revised needs assessment guideline, which further complicates response efforts and hampers timely decision-making.

Pitambar Aryal pointed out significant lapses in NDRRMA’s policies and practices during major disasters, including the Jajarkot earthquake and the 2024 flood. He cited the resource constraints while simultaneously creating bureaucratic bottlenecks that prevent donor agencies from providing assistance. Aryal stressed the importance of preparedness, arguing that proactive measures could make emergency responses smoother and more effective. He also questioned NDRRMA’s failure to address accountability issues, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, when its lack of coordination was glaringly evident. Aryal concluded by urging NDRRMA to adopt transparent processes and due diligence in its leadership and operations to rebuild public and stakeholder trust.

Kedar Neupane, former head of the disaster management department at the Ministry of Home Affairs, provided a candid assessment of NDRRMA’s origins and current state. Neupane reminded participants that NDRRMA was the brainchild of Dr. Gangalal Tuladhar, established through tireless advocacy. However, he expressed disappointment that the authority’s leadership had been diluted over time, losing the high-level qualifications and profile initially envisioned. Neupane argued that effective disaster management requires dynamic leaders, citing India’s National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), where leadership includes high-ranking government officials, such as IAS officers. He proposed adopting a similar recruitment model in Nepal to ensure that NDRRMA is led by competent and experienced individuals.

Highlighting the urgency of reform, Neupane called for immediate steps to build a robust National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) with at least 1,000 personnel. He noted that ineffective leadership in NDRRMA had already cost lives, and taxpayers deserve better from such a critical institution. Neupane urged the audience to advocate for merit-based recruitment and to press the government for accountability in appointing qualified leaders to head NDRRMA.

Dr. Gangalal Tuladhar, a DRRM Council Member and a key architect of Nepal’s disaster management framework, reflected on the historical journey of disaster management in the country. Tuladhar recalled his experiences interacting with policymakers in countries like Japan and the Philippines, who were instrumental in shaping their respective disaster management acts and institutions. Drawing inspiration from these engagements, he worked to incorporate disaster management provisions into Nepal’s constitution and led the creation of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2017. Tuladhar highlighted Nepal’s unique position as one of the few countries globally with constitutional provisions dedicated to disaster management.

However, Tuladhar expressed regret that the progress made in policy creation had not translated into effective implementation. He criticized political parties for remaining passive during the 2024 floods, despite having dedicated disaster risk reduction sections within their structures. Tuladhar reaffirmed his support for the NDRRMA model but emphasized the need for competent leadership to actualize its potential. He called for a critical review of NDRRMA’s five-year performance, urging stakeholders to meet with the Home Minister to push for a transparent recruitment process. Tuladhar maintained an optimistic outlook, stating that while NDRRMA has fallen short of expectations, the lessons learned provide an opportunity to rebuild and reform.

Thule Rai, a DPNet Advisor and former AIG of Nepal Police, brought a comparative perspective, discussing the successful models of disaster management in neighboring countries. Rai noted that India’s NDMA benefits from a well-trained National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), while Pakistan’s Rescue 1122 and Bangladesh’s fire and civil defense services operate under dedicated disaster management ministries. He argued that Nepal could adopt similar frameworks to enhance efficiency and strengthen its disaster response system. Rai also emphasized the need for compliance with international standards such as INSARAG certification, which would improve Nepal’s capacity for international search and rescue operations. Rai shared about the missed opportunities for NDRRMA to establish itself as a central authority for disaster management. For instance, while the authority had created a volunteer mobilization guideline, volunteers were not effectively deployed during the 2024 floods. He also noted that routine press briefings, a critical communication tool during disasters, have been neglected since the establishment of NDRRMA.

Dhurva Bahadur Khadka, ex-spokerperson of NDRRMA with extensive experience in disaster management highlight on systemic challenges within NDRRMA, focusing on its structural limitations, operational inefficiencies, and the critical need for reform. Khadka began by emphasizing the importance of evaluating NDRRMA’s performance over the past five years to identify gaps between its responsibilities and actual practice. He pointed out that while the authority is tasked with significant responsibilities, including mobilizing flying squads and maintaining records of international support, its capacity remains woefully inadequate. For instance, the responsibility of maintaining records of international aid has fallen to the Ministry of Finance, indicating a misalignment of roles. Similarly, while NDRRMA is expected to oversee the National Emergency Operations Center (NEOC), no substantial progress has been made toward its establishment in five years. Drawing on his tenure at NDRRMA, where he served for nine months,one of the longest duration of any staff member, Khadka highlighted the issue of high staff turnover. He described a scenario where staff changes occurred so frequently that institutional memory could not be preserved. "There is no proper handover or takeover," he said, noting that this lack of continuity severely hampers NDRRMA’s ability to build expertise and maintain consistent operations. Khadka emphasized that this revolving door of personnel, coupled with inexperienced replacements, undermines the authority’s capacity to fulfill its monitoring and operational mandates.

Khadka also shared NDRRMA’s difficulty to mobilize key resources, such as security sectors, during disaster events. He remarked that despite the authority’s broad mandate, its leadership lacks the operational leverage to coordinate effectively with security forces. This limitation, he suggested, highlights the need to reconsider NDRRMA’s structural placement, proposing that it either be brought under the MoHA or established as an independent authority with enhanced autonomy.

Budget constraints were another focal point of Khadka’s critique. He revealed that NDRRMA’s annual budget is less than 30 million rupees, a sum that primarily covers staff salaries, leaving little room for disaster preparedness or capacity-building initiatives. While funds are allocated for crisis response, a lack of clarity about whether these resources can be utilized for preparedness efforts has led to inaction. Khadka pointed out that while the government has declared emergency zones and taken loans to address disasters, the affected communities often see little benefit, with funds failing to trickle down to those in need. Reflecting on his experience training District Emergency Operations Center (DEOC) staff, Khadka described a cycle of inefficiency, where trained officials would leave their posts shortly after learning the job, only to be replaced by new recruits who required retraining. This lack of institutional stability, he argued, is emblematic of NDRRMA’s broader struggles.

Khadka’s remarks were candid but constructive. He acknowledged that the floor had given NDRRMA a performance score of 30 out of 100, but he shared that under the current structure, even a new and competent chief executive would struggle to achieve 15 marks. He called for an honest reassessment of NDRRMA’s provisions and urged stakeholders to prioritize reforms that address its structural and operational weaknesses. "It’s time to think critically about what we want NDRRMA to be and how we can equip it to fulfill its role," he said.

In his closing remarks, Dr. Raju Thapa, Chair of the program, emphasized the significance of the discussion in identifying gaps and actionable steps for strengthening the NDRRMA. He highlighted key takeaways from the session, including the urgent need for capable leadership, better inter-agency coordination, and clear operational guidelines. Dr. Thapa acknowledged the recurring themes of accountability, institutional memory, and resource allocation as areas requiring immediate attention. He stressed the importance of addressing these issues to enable NDRRMA to fulfill its mandate effectively and regain trust among stakeholders.

Dr. Thapa also shared that DPNet has been collecting feedback through its virtual DRR platform, where experts and practitioners have been contributing their insights on NDRRMA’s performance and challenges. Combining these inputs with the invaluable feedback shared during the discussion, DPNet plans to prepare a comprehensive list of recommendations aimed at improving the authority’s institutional capacity and operational effectiveness. Concluding the program, Dr. Thapa thanked all participants for their active engagement and meaningful contributions, reiterating DPNet’s commitment to facilitating collaborative efforts for disaster risk reduction in Nepal.