This paper reports on fieldwork in Nepal, which produces a comparison between two communities of their perception and experience of risk. In particular, it explores contrasting ideas of risk governance based upon a community survey as well as in depth interviews with risk and resilience committee members. The paper moves to a tentative conclusion that suggests, in more urban areas the existence of a formal structure embedded in local government is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for disaster risk reduction; in contrast, in rural areas disaster risk reduction discourse

is more difficult because of the overwhelming priority of maintaining livelihood security

Jones, Samantha

English

Northumbria Research Link

Citation: Jones, Samantha (2008) Risk governance in Nepal: Reflecting on experiences with Risk  and  Resilience  Committees.  In:  UK  -  Southeast  Asia  Scientists  and  Practitioners Seminar on Climate Change, Disaster Risk Governance and Emergency Management, 2-3 December 2008, Kuala Lumpur. URL: This  version  was  downloaded  from  Northumbria  Research  Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/6048/Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners.  Single copies of full items can be reproduced,  displayed or  performed,  and given to  third parties in  any format  or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well  as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must  not  be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without  formal  permission  of  the  copyright  holder.   The  full  policy  is  available  online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.htmlThis document may differ from the final, published version of the research and has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.)13Risk governance in Nepal: Reflecting onexperiences with Risk and ResilienceCommitteesDr. Samantha Jones*School of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Ellison Building, EllisonPlace, Newcastle, NE1 8ST, UK.*Corresponding author email: samantha.jones@northumbria.ac.ukAbstractThis paper reports on fieldwork in Nepal, which produces a comparison between twocommunities of their perception and experience of risk. In particular, it explorescontrasting ideas of risk governance based upon a community survey as well as indepth interviews with risk and resilience committee members. The paper moves to atentative conclusion that suggests, in more urban areas the existence of a formalstructure embedded in local government is a necessary but not a sufficient conditionfor disaster risk reduction; in contrast, in rural areas disaster risk reduction discourseis more difficult because of the overwhelming priority of maintaining livelihoodsecurity.Keywords:Community based disaster risk reduction, Nepal, livelihoods, risk and resilienceIntroductionThis paper explores community based disaster risk reduction and locally baseddisaster risk reduction (embedded in local government) drawing on some ‘actionresearch’ conducted in Nepal.Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR)Community based disaster risk reduction emerges from the rationale thatcommunities have the capacity and knowledge to reduce disaster risk. CBDRR waspromoted by the Hyogo Framework and is consistent with the decentralizationagenda. In Nepal, decentralisation has been facilitated by the local Self-GovernanceAct of 1999.Academic perspectivesThere are four broadly related concerns that emerge in the academic literature.First it has been noted that effective CB approaches need strong state support(Veron 2006) but DM in poorer countries is characterised by missing expertise of thestate (Rajan 2002).Second, in community driven development it has been argued that Poor andmarginalised groups may not get their interests met as local elites may captureresources (Pelling 2007, Veron 2006).14Third, it has been suggested that CBDRR may be an added burden to communities,especially when not matched by resources (Allen 2006, Mansuri and Rao 2004) andwhere livelihood strengthening is a higher priority for local people than disasterpreparedness (Paton and Johnson 2001, Chen, Liu and Chen 2006).Finally, it has been noted that there is little research on effective institutionalarrangements (Rajan 2002) or factors promoting/ undermining community institutions(Coombes 2007).Research QuestionsThese academic concerns have influenced the research questions for this projectand these are as follows:1. Where does ‘the community’ think responsibility for DM should lie?2. To what extent do CBDRR institutions represent the interests ofmarginalised/vulnerable groups?3. How are communities interested or motivated in DRR (are they onlyinterested in livelihood strengthening)?4. What institutional arrangements are most effective, sustainable and showgreatest capacity for DRR?Introducing the Risk and Resilience CommitteesThe research case studies were facilitated through a DelPHE project awarded to DrAndrew Collins in conjunction with Kathmandu University, entitled ‘People centredhazard and vulnerability mitigation for DRR in Nepal and Bangladesh’.The project has enabled a number of exchange visits and seminars, and has led tothe establishment of two risk and resilience committees. Quoting Komal Raj Aryal,(Research Associate of Northumbria University, Newcastle): “Municipal or villageplatforms that monitor, record and promote localised DRR and dialogue.”The two RRC case studies are quite different in that one can be regarded as anexample of community based disaster risk reduction (as a CBO) while the other is anexample of locally based disaster risk reduction (an independent group butembedded within local government).The first of the two RRCs was formed in the Panchkhal Valley, approximately 30 kmeast of Kathmandu and is near to Kathmandu University. It is a relatively rurallocation and is an important area for vegetable production supplying Kathmandu. Itwas established through a series of participatory workshops which included: hazardand vulnerability mapping; identifying the most vulnerable groups; matrix ranking ofrisks; and spider diagrams to explore priorities for risk reduction.A community based organisation was formed and committee members included achair of the VDC and other local group leaders (women’s, cooperative, scheduledcastes).Their activities have been overseen by Kathmandu University and academics haveattended the RRC meetings. So far, the RRC has constructed a holding board topublicise their existence; they have established a relief and compensation fund for15people affected by disasters and they have planned a pesticide awareness trainingprogramme.The second case study is from Dhankuta Municipality in the east of Nepal. It is anarea which is slightly more urbanised. The establishment of the RRC there can beattributed to the interest and enthusiasm of the Acting Mayor who throughconnections made between Northumbria University and the Ministry, attended anearly seminar at Kathmandu University. He decided to establish the RRC andintegrated it into local government structures. As a result, he has been able tosecure funds from the Ministry of Local Development. He selected the committeemembers himself. So far they have similarly established a holding board and relieffund. They are also actively engaged in keeping a register of risks/disasters andhave reduced the risk of road accidents through improved traffic management. Theyare also planning some vulnerability mapping.MethodologyThe two methods used were in-depth qualitative interviews with committee membersof the two RRCs and a quantitative questionnaire survey of 200 members of thewider community in each location. RRC meetings were also attended. The researchcan be viewed very much as action research project in the sense that researchersactively shape the conditions in which they research, not only establishing the RRCsthemselves but also feeding findings of the survey back to the RRCs.Research FindingsThe first question ‘With whom disaster management and disaster risk reductionresponsibility should lie?’ was asked directly within the community survey. It wasexpected that respondents’ answers would reflect to some extent, their assessmentof the capability of the government vis a vis, other institutions; whether disaster riskreduction would be considered an added burden for the community and the extent towhich risk management is individualised.The pie charts (Figures 1 and 2) show quite marked differences between Dhankutaand Panchkhal. In Panchkhal, DRR is seen to be much more of an individualisedand family level concern, whereas, at Dhankuta, emphasis is placed on localgovernment and village associations. It may be hypothesised that this hassomething to do with how the recent Maoist conflict has played in the two areas. InPanchkhal, people are quite secretive about their political allegiances and as a result,there has been a break down in trust in the area. In Dhankuta, people are very openabout their politics and community cohesion seems not to have declined as a result.Perhaps in Dhankuta, also because the Acting Mayor is not affiliated with anypolitical party, the local government apparatus has continued to function better. Thismay in turn have created slightly more favourable attitudes towards centralgovernment.16Figure 1 and 2 ‘With whom should responsibility for disaster management/disaster risk reduction lie?’The second question: “To what extent does the RRC represent the widercommunity?” was explored in two ways; firstly, through the opinions of committeemembers and the caste and gender composition of the committee and secondly,through exploring the level of congruence between what the RRCs and what thewider community consider to be risk priorities.Both committees were very mindful of caste and gender composition and as a result,representation of women and minority groups on the committee was strong.However, it was recognised that some individuals were quite silent in meetings.In Dhankuta, an effort had been made to remedy this, and a women from ascheduled caste had been sent on a computer training course in an effort to raise herconfidence.In Panchkhal, however, one woman from a scheduled caste suggested she was onlya token member of the committee. She argued that while some of the members ofthe RRC had the interests of the most vulnerable at heart, others did not. She saidthat so far, only relatively wealthy community members had benefited from reliefmoney when their dwellings had been affected by fire. She thought that the pesticideawareness training was a good idea but it needed to be offered as a priority tolandless labourers. She thought that it was more likely to be offered to people in theCentral Valley who are wealthier farmers of higher castes.In order to examine the third question about level of congruence between riskpriorities of the community compared with the committee, the risk concerns to haveemerged in the community survey were compared with what activities the committeehave chosen to prioritise. In Panchkhal, the risk concerns were wide ranging (Figure3). Deforestation is the main concern but in theory, this can be addressed by existingcommunity forestry institutions. The RRC have decided to focus on pesticidereduction, which was only the eighth concern of the wider community. However,when these results were fed back to the committee, they argued that some of thedisease/illness risk (ranked second) also related to pesticide use. Drought wasanother concern of the RRC, which was ranked fourth by the community after literacy,17which arguably would be outside of the remit of an RRC. Thus, the RRC may not beaddressing the key risk concerns but these may be the responsibility of otherinstitutions. The RRC are addressing concerns that are not addressed elsewhere.Figure 3: Community perceptions of risks, hazards and disasters inPanchkhalIn Dhankuta, a wide range of risks was also identified (Figure 4). The RRC so farhas chosen to focus on road accident minimisation through speed limit setting,developing a one-way system in the town and bus driver training. This was thesecond concern to be ranked the highest after floods and landslides. While floodsand landslides may be more challenging for the RRC to address, they hadchannelled relief funds to landslide victims, showing a high level of congruencebetween committee actions and community concerns.Figure 4: Community perception of potential risks, hazards and disastersin DhankutaTwo indicators were explored to examine the level of motivation at the communitylevel to engage in DRR. The first was the motivation of the committee membersthemselves and the second was the priorities of the wider community in terms ofDRR relative to livelihood-strengthening activities.In Panchkhal, motivation at the committee level was high among key male memberswho already held positions of authority in the community. However, it was loweramong those who had to travel further or who were from more excluded groups.18Meetings had become more irregular and less frequent as some members wouldonly attend if expenses were covered and unfortunately, funding through KathmanduUniversity to cover these expenses had not materialised.In Dhankuta the members who had been selected by the Acting Mayor demonstrateda high level of social conscience. They were happy to be voluntary members but didnot want to commit to much more than attending monthly meetings. In terms of whatthe RRC should do in Panchkhal (Figure 5), the community suggested manyactivities. Although awareness-raising featured as the main priority, many othersuggested activities were about livelihood strengthening than DRR.Figure 5: What should the RRC do (Panchkhal)?In Dhankuta, significantly greater emphasis was placed on awareness-raising relativeto livelihood strengthening (Figure 6), suggesting a higher level of receptivity to DRRin the community.Figure 6: What should the RRC do (Dhankuta)?The final question relates to the most effective institutional arrangements for DRRand includes issues of capacity and the importance of financial resources.Both committees showed high levels of administrative capacity in terms of organisingmeetings, taking minutes, distributing minutes, etc., but some members of bothcommittees were a little unsure about what RRCs should do. This was more19pronounced in Panchkhal. In Panchkhal, funding issues prevented the pesticideawareness training from happening, illustrating the necessity of securing funding forRRCs to work effectively. The link between Kathmandu University and the RRC hadled to some confusion about who was driving the agenda and as such, a slowresponsiveness to new key risk priorities such as drought, was reported. There hasbeen some difference of opinion within the committee about whether to register as anNGO or to get approval to become embedded within the local government structure.Neither of these courses of action has yet been pursued and as a result, noadditional funds have been secured. As a CBO, accountability and transparencymechanisms are not really in place although this may be facilitated by KathmanduUniversity’s role.In Dhankuta progress has been more significant, not least because further fundinghas been secured and the RRC has been allocated an annual budget through theMinistry of Local Development. At the level of the municipality, a disaster riskreduction lens is being applied to existing responsibilities, such as land use planningand traffic management. The municipality is well connected to the emergencyservices that are essential in disaster recovery, such as the police and the army.They are also well connected to community-based organisations, known as ToleLane Organisations in Nepal. There was a sense though; that the municipality seesits role as feeding information down to community based organisations rather thanadopting a bottom-up participatory approach with two-way communication. One godidea to have been implemented was to ensure that the RRC members representdifferent political parties so should political leadership change; the RRC memberscan stay the same. There is also a strong sense of local responsibility for disasterrisk reduction at this level and accountability and transparency mechanisms are inplace as part of the local government structure.ConclusionTo conclude, there is a lack of consensus on where responsibility for disaster riskreduction should lie, perhaps shaped by the uncertainty of political allegiance, whichvaries by place. Broadly, the committees were addressing communities’ concerns.However these were to a greater extent produced risks – road accidents andpesticide risk – which perhaps the committees felt in a better position to influencethan environmental hazards such as floods, landslides, which may be regarded asmore ‘everyday risks’.In Dhankuta, there may have been some elite control in terms of developing the DRRagenda but patronage was dispersed equally among the population. However, inPanchkhal, there were signs that deeply embedded power relations may overshadowand inhibit true representation of marginalised and vulnerable groups thus leading toa poorer quality DRR process.While disaster management capacity is not particularly strong, the institutionallyembedded arrangements show greatest potential in terms of accessing resourcesand applying a DRR lens to existing responsibilities. By providing an annual budgetto the RRC it suggests that resources as well as responsibility may be beingdevolved, presenting less of an ‘added burden’ to communities.At the CBO level however, livelihood-strengthening activities may be moreappropriate than addressing the infrastructural targets generated by communityranking of disaster risk in the municipality. However, both require a socialunderstanding of risk rather than the simple provision of top-down engineering “bluelight” responses.20ReferencesAllen, K. (2006) Community based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation:local capacity building in the Philippines, Disasters, 30, 1, 81-101Bajeck, R., Matsuda, Y. and Okada, N. (2008) Japan’s Jishu-bosai-sokshikicommunity activities: analysis of its role in participatory community disaster riskmanagement, Natural Hazards, 44, 2, 281-292Chen, L.C. Liu, Y.C. and Chen K.C. (2006) Integrated Community-Based DisasterManagement Program in Taiwan: A case study of Shang-An village, Natural Hazards,37, 1-2, 209-223Coombes, B. (2007) Defending community? Indigeneity, self determination andinstitutional ambivalence in the restoration of Lake Whakaki, Geoforum, 38, 60-72Paton, D. and Johnston, D. (2001) Disasters and Communities: Vulnerability,resilience and preparedness, Disaster Prevention and Management, 10, 4, 270-277Pelling, M. (2007) Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatorydisaster risk assessment, Disasters, 31, 4, 373-385Rajan, S.R. (2002) Disaster, development and governance: Reflections on thelessons of Bhopal, Environmental Values, 11, 2002, 369-94Veron, R., Williams, G., Corbridge, S. and Srivastava, M (2006) Decentralisedcorruption or corrupt decentralisation? Community monitoring of poverty alleviationschemes in Eastern India,World Development, 34, 11, 1922-1941

Risk governance in Nepal: Reflecting on experiences with Risk and Resilience Committees

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northumbria Research Link