Community‐led reconstruction, social inclusion and participation in post‐earthquake Nepal

Abstract

Motivation: Disasters have terrible consequences for those affected, but do they also provide opportunities to challenge existing social divisions and inequalities and to promote democratic social change? Purpose: This article explores whether community-led reconstruction (CLR) can leverage progressive social change by increasing the participation and social inclusion of marginalized and excluded groups. The question it addresses is: to what extent and in what ways can CLR facilitate participation and social inclusion in post-disaster contexts? It does so by examining the community-led reconstruction programme (CLRP) implemented by the non-governmental organization ActionAid Nepal (AAN) after the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal. Approach and methods: After reviewing existing literature on CLR, including shortcomings in implementation, the study uses data collected from community focus groups and interviews with government officials, as well as from a perception survey undertaken among earthquake victims. We collected data for six categories of marginalized people: women, landless, Dalits, indigenous groups, elderly and youth, and analysed the data pertaining to issues of participation and inclusion for each category using NVivo software. Findings: The findings indicate greater progress towards women's social inclusion than for other marginalized social groups, with improvements in women's social status. Additionally, enhanced community solidarity was evident in support of landless people. While newly created community reconstruction committees had not sustained their activities, the presence of pre-existing local social movements, such as women's rights forums (WRFs) and land rights forums (LRFs), was key to making claims on government. Therefore, AAN's CLRP had led to limited achievements in terms of greater participation and social inclusion of some hitherto marginalized groups, though difficulties in sustaining challenges to deep-seated inequalities were also noted.

Progress after the 2015 Nepal Earthquake: Evidence from Two Household Surveys in One of the Hardest-Hit Mountain Villages

“…Moreover, a significant proportion of the population not only recovered well from the earthquake but also improved their overall quality of life, which are in line with the positive impacts of natural disaster in the longer term found in existing literature [56,57]. In the case of Nepal, the decentralized administrative structure with newly elected local to central governments under the new Constitution of Nepal in 2015 [58], the community-led owner-driven reconstruction, social inclusion and participation [59,60], and the donor community played crucial roles in these achievements [24,61].…”

Public health implications of multiple disaster exposures

“…On a more local level, one study after the Nepal earthquakes in 2015 found that the operational reliance of non-governmental organ isations on social capital to distribute support after a disaster contributed to inequities in access to resources. 152 Recovery processes 26 articles focused on elements of recovery from multiple disasters, including economic recovery, 153,154 government and political factors in the recovery stage, 53,66,[155][156][157][158][159][160] community capitals, 24 schools as central hubs for recovery, 161 disaster recovery committees, 162 inequalities in recovery, [163][164][165][166][167] and reconstruction experiences. 150,[168][169][170] This group also included articles on programmes undertaken in a recovery setting in low-income and middle-income countries, including a food security and relief programme, 171 a microcredit programme, 172 a recovery aid programme, 69 and a global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programme.…”

“…92 • Develop inclusive recovery frameworks, committees, and support programmes that recognise the needs of diverse communities. 118,162,165,166,169 • Develop policy and interventions to support people in preventing, preparing for, and recovering from ongoing or recurring disasters. 164 Ensure that any recovery interventions do not overlook crucial social, cultural, political, and environmental factors that can influence the recovery process.…”

When Housing and Communities Were Delivered: A Case Study of Post-Wenchuan Earthquake Rural Reconstruction and Recovery

“…Previous studies have generally demonstrated that local inhabitants have specific capacities to facilitate long-term recovery [46], including political [47], social [48], leadership [49], and economic capacity [50]. As an illustration, Crawford and Morrison argue that the community-led reconstruction program after the 2015 Nepal earthquake repaired local social connections and promoted social inclusion through engaging with marginalized and under-represented groups [51]. Moreover, an evaluation of long-term livelihood recovery following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, demonstrated that local disaster survivors could utilize financial aid provided by external sponsors to restore their livelihoods to their pre-disaster levels [52].…”

“…Likewise, disaster survivors in other nations have their unique expertise [4,52]. In other words, if these grassroots expertise capacities could be engaged in the official built environment planning and architectural design, the physical environment weaknesses would be reduced [51]. In doing so, the inhabitants would more easily adapt to their new communities, enhancing long-term recovery and advancing sustainable community development.…”