Case studies like Nepal offer the opportunity to reassess how individuals and communities affected by natural disasters can be better served by humanitarian efforts, writes Jeevan R Sharma. He argues the future of international assistance lies in developing constructive relationships with the state and effective partnerships with the local organisations who often end up leading the relief effort on the ground. This article forms part of our Nepal Earthquake Anniversary series. Read further posts here

Sharma, Jeevan R.

LSE Research Online

2016-4-29The 2015 earthquakes highlight that Nepal is not a passiverecipient of aid, nor should it be treated as suchblogs.lse.ac.uk /southasia/2016/04/29/the-2015-earthquakes-highlight-that-nepal-is-not-a-passive-recipient-of-aid-nor-should-it-be-treated-as-such/Case studies like Nepal offer the opportunity to reassess how individuals and communities affected bynatural disasters can be better served by humanitarian efforts, writes Jeevan R Sharma. Heargues the future of international assistance lies in developing constructive relationships with thestate and effective partnerships with the local organisations who often end up leading the reliefeffort on the ground.This article forms part of our Nepal Earthquake Anniversary series. Read further posts here.Based on a reflection on the political history of foreign aid, local perceptions of aid agencies anddiscourses around sovereignty and nationalism in Nepal, this brief piece examines the inability of humanitarianorganisations and the Nepali government to effectively provide assistance to the victims of the earthquakes in Apriland May 2015.The Nepal experience shows that international humanitarian response systems urgently need a major reshuffle. It isinvariably local organisations and the affected populations themselves who do most to provide assistance, eventhough they lack the resources of the big agencies. Furthermore, international aid is increasingly resisted (if notoutright rejected) by the State on nationalistic and sovereignty-based grounds, creating an environment ofscepticism and hostility against donors. The future of international humanitarian assistance therefore lies indeveloping effective partnerships to facilitate work of the local organisations in disaster situations.The earthquakesWhile scientists had long predicted that an earthquake was overdue in the region, the disasters that eventually hitcentral Nepal on 25 April and 12 May last year resulted in loss of lives and livelihoods in 14 severely affected and 17neighbouring districts. Around 9,000 were killed and approximately 2.8 million (around 10 per cent of Nepal’spopulation) were left in need of humanitarian assistance.In a country with low development indicators, the earthquakes disproportionately affected the poorer and those inremote rural locations. The Post Disaster Needs Assessment carried out by National Planning Commission showedthat total losses are estimated at one third of Nepal’s GDP, and the World Bank reported that an additional 3% of thepopulation have been pushed into poverty.ResponseNepal’s ability to respond quickly and effectively was hampered by the geographical remoteness of affectedcommunities, poor infrastructure and indeed a lack of physical infrastructure (such as the fact there is only oneinternational airport in the country, which in turn has just one runway). However, it has also been undermined by alack of strong political leadership. When the earthquakes hit, Nepal was going through an intense process of staterestructuring and reconciliation following a decade-long violent Maoist insurgency. Local bodies had been run bygovernment staff for 13 years and the absence of elected representatives meant there was no ready system todeliver relief aid to districts and villages. In an op-ed published in English daily in Kathmandu, the then ChiefSecretary wrote,“I admit that we didn’t have capability and preparedness to handle a disaster of such magnitude.1/3Even if we did, we would not be able to maintain that scale of resources, all the time, in anticipation ofsuch disaster.”Nepali soldiers unload aid and relief supplies delivered by a U.S. Marine Corps. Credit: Sgt. Jeffrey D. Anderson  CC BY-NC-ND 2.0International humanitarian assistance was therefore inevitable and necessary. Given the long history of foreign aidin the country, donors and several development-humanitarian agencies were already on the ground. Within hoursfurther rescue and relief teams from neighbouring India and China began to arrive, followed by humanitarian teamsfrom other countries and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Journalists and locals began tocapture and share the images and descriptions of suffering, which quickly circulated internationally throughtraditional and social media, espousing aid from around the world. A UN Flash Appeal for support launched on 29April 2015 requested a total of $422 million USD to meet critical humanitarian needs. Relief aid was mainlydistributed through traditional humanitarian players, such as the UN, the Red Cross and major INGOs such as Savethe Children, Oxfam and World Vision. This aid ultimately filtered through to local organisations who began to carryout the work on the ground through sub-contractual agreements. This convoluted process raises important questionsaround transaction costs and the accountability of humanitarian assistance.A major donor conference was organised in Kathmandu in June 2015 and donors pledged a massive $4.1 billionUSD for reconstruction. While donors were enthusiastic to promise aid, they have since been reluctant to releaseand disburse funds citing poor governance (unsurprising given the track record of the Nepali State). The formation ofa Post-earthquake Reconstruction Authority was then marred by political interference and incompetency and onlyreceived legal backing in December 2015. In addition to the coordination challenges, the government has been thesubject of criticism for its patronage in appointments relating to reconstruction work and for severe delays in gettingaid to those in need. Although the government had promised to provide the worst affected families with a grant ofNepali Rupee 200,000 (approx. $2,000 USD) and a loan with little interest to assist in rebuilding homes, onlyrecently a few hundred households received partial aid of Nepali Rupees 50,000.Nor did broader developments such as the promulgation of the Constitution in September 2015 result in politicalstability as hoped. Instead it triggered deadly protests in the Terai region and blockages on the Indian border whichcaused severe food and fuel shortages, adding to the miseries of the already suffering population.Aid politicsThe history of foreign aid in Nepal is contentious . In different periods of Nepal’s political history, foreign aid has2/3played instrumental role in consolidating the regime, as well as for promoting democracy and regime change,according to the donors’ own agendas.The bitter relationship between the State and the donors pre-dates the 2015 earthquakes. Following the impositionof neo-liberal policies in late 1980s and early 1990s, development donors have been critical of the inefficiency, poorgovernance and failure to meet conditionalities. On the other hand, the Nepali State has been critical of internationaldonors for the restrictive aid conditionalities, channelling funding through INGOs and private contractors formanaging development programmes (where transactional costs and overheads are very high), and ultimatelydemonising the State for being inefficient and unaccountable. The inefficiency of the Nepali State and lack ofcoordination are well known, and any analysis and the criticisms of the State ought to take into account the effects ofneoliberal policies on the capacity of the State.In the aftermath of the earthquake, it should be recognised that the government faces a significant paradoxicalchallenge to balance its role between coordination and regulation: there is a widespread expectation on the State tomanage international aid, but it is expected to do it in such a way that is not seen to be controlling it and thusdenying those most in need.Given the resources and the political capital at stake, the Nepali State has been attempting to manipulate post-earthquake aid using nationalistic and sovereignty discourses. Not only does availability of large amount ofresources create opportunities for ‘corruption’ (or at least the perception), political parties are often known to usedevelopment resources to build and sustain their own patronage networks.SurvivorsIn this highly contentious debate, the survivors’ concerns around security and their livelihoods have been ignored.People are taking responsibility into their hands to rebuild their lives while the State and the donors bicker with oneother. While there are open questions on the responsibility and the accountability of the State, the donors and theintermediary organisations, for the local people what really matters is the assistance they actually receive. This iswelcome regardless of whether it is provided by neighbours, the Nepali State or international organisations.Nepal’s 2015 earthquakes show that the state and communities are not passive recipients and should not be treatedas such. Access to information on aid flows and modalities mean that aid recipients are not just passive clientswaiting for relief, but are actively involved in scrutiny of humanitarian processes both from the State, foreigngovernments and INGOs. The increasing criticism of international aid raises questions about the universality ofGlobal North-led humanitarian objectives. Case studies like Nepal offer the opportunity to reassess how individualsand communities affected by natural disasters can be better served by humanitarian efforts.This article forms part of our Nepal Earthquake Anniversary series. Read further posts here.Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the South Asia @ LSE blog, nor of the LondonSchool of Economics. Please read ourcomments policy before posting.About the AuthorJeevan R. Sharma is Lecturer in South Asia and International Development at the University ofEdinburgh. He is currently researching on brokerage of foreign aid in Nepal and Malawi. You canreach him at: jeevan.sharma@ed.ac.ukCopyright © 2016 London School of Economics3/3

The 2015 earthquakes highlight that Nepal is not a passive recipient of aid, nor should it be treated as such

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online