Post‐conflict disaster governance in Nepal: one‐door policy, multiple‐window practice

Abstract

After the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal, the response was as overwhelming as the magnitude of the disaster itself. Tensions between the humanitarian imperative and the postconflict statebuilding agenda soon became evident. Many actors opened different windows for responding by creatively complying to support the state's approach, whereas others bypassed the official channels completely. In post-conflict settings such as Nepal, the situation is especially complicated because of the contradiction between policies underscoring the importance of the state in the response and the reality of the fragile state, which often creates a large role for aid actors. In Nepal, the post-conflict political landscape shaped the contours of the response, as well as how actors decided to operate within them. Based on empirical findings from four months of research, this article contributes to a better understanding of the intricacies of the post-disaster and post-conflict nexus in the context of a state-led response.

Rahat-Sahayog(relief support): examining disaster emergency response in the aftermath of the Nepal Earthquake 2015

“…However, it should be noted that within weeks of the initial disaster the government asserted that all contributions must flow through the Prime Minister's Disaster Relief Fund, and it created a complicated set of regulations making it much harder for I/NGOs to continue their work. These regulations (for example, the “ one-door policy ”) introduced to control, channel and distribute humanitarian aid through one government body created tensions and mistrust between the government and I/NGOs or non-state humanitarian actors (see Melis, 2022).…”

Reviewing Accountability Mechanisms in Nepal’s 2015 Earthquake Reconstruction

“…While meetings were held to address the concerns of vulnerable groups in the presence of local politicians, their decision-making power appeared limited (Lam and Kuipers, 2019). The involvement of local leaders occasionally led to conflicts between service providers and beneficiaries, given the varying satisfaction levels of the latter (Melis, 2020). Social elites played a significant role in rescue and recovery efforts, owing to their strong connections with service providers (Shrestha et al, 2018).…”

“…Inclusion and marginalization were other important sub-themes mentioned in 18% of studies. Vulnerable groups continued to experience exclusion, thereby limiting opportunities for strategic discussions with state and non-state actors (Melis, 2020). Despite policy provisions, exclusion persisted in central-level apex committees dedicated to disaster management and recovery (Shrestha et al, 2018), depriving the most vulnerable individuals of their voice in practice (Dhungana and Curato, 2021).…”

“…The blanket approach was identified as a sub-theme in 12% of studies, characterized by its application in housing reconstruction to encompass all affected individuals. While the state favoured this approach to cover well-off families and partially damaged households, tensions between state and non-state actors arose due to humanitarian considerations (Melis, 2020). However, support for vulnerable groups in house reconstruction proved inadequate and impractical (Lam and Kuipers, 2019).…”

“…Within this theme, 31% of the studies highlighted the transparent management of housing grants, while 18% focused on transparent assistance packages available to the public. A study emphasized the significance of governance and transparency as essential elements in managing external aid (Melis, 2020). However, the reconstruction strategy's reliance on a uniform assistance package proved insufficient for housing reconstruction, particularly for low-income individuals (Bothara et al, 2018).…”