- Friday, 2 October 2026
Narayan Prasad Ghimire/RSS
Kathmandu, Oct 1: A month has passed since the devastative flood that ripped through Bhotekoshi-Trishuli river from Nepal-China border in Rasuwa district. The chance of finding the missing ones alive is now very slim. With this, the government has decided to gradually shift its focus towards recovery- resettlement and reconstruction.
Foundational data on loss of human lives and damages to property has been made public by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA). As per the report unveiled by NDRRMA, the number of deaths caused by the disaster has crossed 1,400, while the total economic loss amounted to 883.3 million US dollars. The report also mentioned categorical damages- in hydropower, agriculture, livestock, cultural heritage, roads and bridges, schools and banks. It has estimated the total reconstruction and recovery needs of USD 4,774.99 million.
International advocacy
With this catastrophe causing a huge loss of lives and property and requiring a hefty amount for recovery, analyses are pouring in from various angles ranging from climate justice to sustainable resettlements. The demand for ‘climate justice’ to Nepal, the country with less than 0.1 percent role in global greenhouse gas emission, has been reverberated across the globe with Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s address in the UN General Assembly and Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal’s address in the sideline meetings and Nepal-hosted event. Even the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reminded the world leaders that he had already made a wakeup call from the roof of the world.
With the passage of time, the attention and discussions are gradually gaining pace, giving focus on how the resettlements and reconstruction campaigns should be forwarded.
Building beyond infrastructures
Currently, many displaced families are staying in relief camps, under tents. They are being provided emergency support by the government and even by the humanitarian aid agencies. Daily essentials are provided. The government is now planning the reconstruction of the damaged infrastructures and resettlements of the displaced ones.
But, how should reconstruction drive be taken ahead? Is it like that of post-2015 Gorkha earthquake or different? How different will it be from post-quake rebuilding? Is the recovery accomplished with reconstruction of damaged houses, structures and facilities or does it need to pay heed to the needs and aspiration of displaced ones so that resettlement would help keep intact the social harmony and foster sustained livelihood? These are worth pondering questions at present.
The displaced people may be from diverse communities, having different culture and classes. Whether the integrated settlements for all of them can be feasible or not is a question because proximity counts much for bond. At the same time, geographical features- away from river flood, no risk of landslide and quake resistance have equal importance.
The flood-displaced have faced irreparable loss with deaths of family members, destruction of houses, disconnection from community and friends, relatives. The death is irreparable; some damages can be compensated with reconstructions, but the bond to village, the yearning for neighbourhood, the schooling and cultural affiliations are so inherent that resettlements sometime fail to give a sense. Such issues require adequate attention while forwarding settlement bids. Even the harmony with neighbouring villages of the resettled community should be taken into account, as the researchers suggest.
We have prior examples that even some people from Barpak village of Gorkha district had denied relocation away from their original places when the government assured to provide them housing in separate locations following the 2015 Earthquake. It vividly hints at urgency of sociological address of the resettlement.
In this connection, this scribe reached out to some international geographers and sociologists and anthropologists who have been constantly observing and researching on Nepal. They have underscored that the recovery drive should reflect a collective sense of the displaced, their needs and aspiration. It is true that returning to originality is not possible but attempting to give a shared feeling and ownership of rebuilding can foster harmony and resilience.
What experts suggest
The experts have advocated for ‘building back differently’ and even the concept of ‘circular reconstruction’ has been forwarded by some of them.
Professor of Geography and Geoscience at the University of Central Missouri in USA, Dr Keshav Bhattarai and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) in Nepal, Dr Ambika P. Adhikari, have meticulously analyzed the August 26 disaster in a recent report. Their suggestions range from constant monitoring of the mountains to climate-just recovery. “The durable lesson is to observe the mountains continuously, leave room for the river and floods, keep irreplaceable functions outside catastrophic plains and corridors, and ensure that every warning reaches both an accountable authority and a community on time, and that recovery relies on redundant and resilient systems,” they stated in the report.
They further recommend ‘multi-hazard design envelopes, future-climate allowances and failure-safe layouts’ as part of the infrastructure standard.
Lesson from 2015 resettlement
It has not been a long that Nepal accomplished the post-disaster reconstruction after the 7.8 magnitude earthquake rattled Nepal in 2015. Nearly 9,000 people had lost lives in the earthquake then. Huge number of private houses were damaged. ‘Build back better’ was the slogan resonated much in Nepal then. It focused on earthquake-resistant housing. A mega project of rebuilding, ‘Earthquake Housing Reconstruction Project’ was launched since December 25, 2015.
The government had announced 14 districts as the crisis-hit districts after the devastative earthquake. Although most of the houses destroyed in 2015 earthquake were low-strength ones, the disaster had laid bare the haphazard urbanization with huge casualties even in the federal capital, Kathmandu.
How was the recovery- reconstruction and resettlement then? It is right time to remember the interventions and make observation so that present/future activities can be made impactful.
Pay heed to indigenous knowledge
In this regard, an Associate Professor at Department of Anthropology and School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Sara Shneiderman; and an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Berry College, Amy Leigh Johnson, were asked about their observation in terms of respect to the rights of indigenous people on post-Earthquake (2015) rehabilitation and reconstruction campaigns.
They responded, “The 2015 Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) states that 41% of houses damaged in the earthquake belonged to Dalits and Indigenous communities. The principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) should have therefore been a non-negotiable foundation for meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples at the initial stages of the post-earthquake reconstruction process—and indeed, with all affected local communities. This means that indigenous peoples, through their representative organizations, should have had an opportunity to be part of the planning process for the National Housing Reconstruction Programme.”
The scholars who have done sufficient research on Nepal from sociological lens further argued, “While urban sites formally recognized as ‘cultural heritage zones’ did generally receive priority attention, indigenous design and building knowledge at the private housing level was not adequately recognized as a legitimate form of expertise in the housing reconstruction criteria, particularly in rural areas.
It is worth noting that their observation reminds us a point of the PDNA prepared by the National Planning Commission after 2015 earthquake had stated, “Restore and conserve Nepal’s cultural heritage and indigenous architecture.” It was mentioned in the Prioritization of Recovery Needs under PDNA.
Although the nature of 2015 quake damages and recent flood damages are different, the sociological factors warranting attention for resettlements this time are not that different. Therefore, the observation of researchers on the previous disaster management and recovery initiatives count much. The past weaknesses can be corrected and rebuilding forwarded accordingly.
Climate Justice: Shared welfare
The agenda of ‘climate justice’ has been vibrantly raised both in the national and international debates and forums after August 26. Even Prime Minister Balendra Shah reiterated what the climate justice should mean in his recent address in the general debate of 81st session of the UN General Assembly. He reminded that climate justice is not limited to financial concern. “It is about distributive justice – who bears the costs. It is about procedural justice – who has a voice,” PM Shah underscored.
However, considering the resource insufficiency to tackle climate hazards on its own, ‘climate justice’ in Nepal, is largely understood as the sufficient funding (with help from developed countries that are responsible for greenhouse gas emission), to recover from disaster and build resilience.
In this connection, the researchers- Shneiderman and Leigh Johnson- were asked: How should climate justice be understood and materialized at local level/national levels?
They stressed, “Climate justice requires understanding the differential distribution of risk, exposure and vulnerability to different hazards across communities, households, and individuals. In Nepal, every ward in every municipality should have a Disaster Management Committee (DMC), whose responsibilities include such risk mapping. Yet often their budgets are not adequate to mitigate the risks they have identified. Funding is usually only forthcoming after a disaster, rather than in advance to mitigate known risks through adaptation or other strategies.”
Once Nepal receives climate reparations as a response to the August disaster (or others), the federal government should work with provinces and municipalities to ensure that budgets are allocated for mitigation at the local level, and distributed accordingly to areas of greatest need in accordance with assessed risk, they suggest, adding, “Community members should be part of such risk assessments and distribution decisions, which can be based upon indigenous and other forms of local knowledge in relation to scientific knowledge.”
Their opinion finely suggests wider attention and engagement in the activities ranging from risk assessment to resource distribution. It is indeed a moment for multiple layers of government to work in utmost unison, which ultimately reflects and translates the federal values.
Community bond and harmony
Social cohesion is Nepal’s one of the biggest assets. So, as the government is take ahead recovery activities, how it pays heed to the community bonds draws attention. Keeping intact community bonds helps build social harmony which may further contribute to lessening the trauma. In this connection, this scribe made another question to Shneiderman and Leigh Johnson: How can the family, community bonds be kept intact or reconnected?
In response, they reminded their research on ‘circular resettlement’, which they argued, taught them how important it was for the relocated ones to maintain connections to pre-disaster settlements and communities after the 2015 earthquake.
They recommend, “It would be ideal for people from the same pre-disaster settlement to be resettled together in an integrated settlement. Nepal already has largely followed this trend in the post-2015 earthquake integrated settlements. Staying together places less stress on the resettled to build community from scratch.”
In view of the caste/ethic dynamics, the researchers further viewed, “Settling people in areas where their identity group is highly represented could be a strategy to minimize social conflicts since there would be a shared cultural, linguistic, and religious feeling between the displaced and their neighbours.”
However, Shneiderman and Leigh Johnson argued this strategy alone cannot be fully resolve social problems which may surface during resettlement. “Having structured programmes in place to bring people together and designing infrastructure to be used jointly by the integrated settlement and neighbouring villages (such as a community centre) are other methods that could facilitate better community building between integrated settlements and neighbour,” the researchers suggest.
Any model?
For the rehabilitation and resettlement schemes that Nepal can replicate, they suggest Nepal can follow the Indonesian model. Giving an example of Indian Ocean Tsunami that hit hard 13,000 households in Indonesia in 2004, they explained there were several facilities available in resettlement. “The complexes had housing, school, health centres, mosque, meeting hall and market. In many cases, the resettlement complexes were located close to pre-tsunami villages, typically less than 20km. They had even the governing councils to oversee local affairs and disputes.”
The deep religious and cultural similarities had acted as effective thread to connect the people among the tsunami-displaced and host villagers, which they argued, made planners optimistic that there would be good social relations among the resettlement complex residents themselves, as well as between them and the host villages.
“Rather than building back better as the mantra goes, Nepal can ‘build back differently’ by upholding human-centred values, emphasizing sustainability, recognizing the inequitable distribution of risk and its causes, and prioritizing communities’ autonomy over their futures,” Shneiderman and Leigh Johnson further suggested in an article (theconversation.com) focusing on Nepal’s recovery following August 26 floods.
Now, it is time for Nepal to show the world its effective, resilient, just and equitable way of recovery. —
