Nepal Government’s Emergency Response to the 2015 Earthquake: A Case Study

Abstract

This paper utilizes the National Disaster Response Framework 2013 guidelines to analyze the large-scale disaster response of the Nepal government’s institutional system in the wake of the 2015 earthquake. The methodology includes in-depth interviews with key informants, focus group discussions, field observations, and document analysis. The study found that despite limitations in institutional capacity and scarcity of resources, government institutions such as the Nepal Army, the Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force, the District Administration Offices, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and major public hospitals made a significant contribution to support the victims. Nevertheless, it also revealed the current weaknesses of those institutions in terms of response effectiveness and provides recommendations for enhancing their capacity.

Breaking Through Barriers and Building Disaster Mental Resilience: A Case Study in the Aftermath of the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes

“…Although in Nepal there is a need to improve disaster preparedness and response efforts [46], interestingly enough, communities to some extent have built up their own resiliency through culture. Participants mentioned that the least affected groups shared helping hands with those severely affected by the earthquake in the post-earthquake phase.…”

“…An integrated community-based risk reduction (ICBRR) approach was implemented in Indonesia, which has enabled those communities to become the first responders to disaster risks [70]. Such community-based programs are incredibly relevant to rural and remote Nepalese communities, because they are mostly inaccessible due to geographical, infrastructural, or climatic challenges and human resource constraints, which are also the common excuses reiterated by the Nepal government for falling short in any disaster response [46]. Although coverage may be limited, various community-led activities were introduced during the earthquakes and are still carried on by volunteers, who bring communities together to identify issues and solve problems.…”

“…The chaos, delay, insufficiency, and confusion identified in this study suggest a need for better response capacities. The present context, as understood from the disaster response to the 2015 earthquakes, revealed the low possibility of the country to deal with a future disaster without international assistance [46]. The massive impact from the 2015 earthquakes, followed by the slow-paced recovery actions and delayed adaptation to a post-earthquake environment, has gradually shown the negative influence on the mental health of the affected population as they become more disadvantaged over time [46].…”

“…Rural and remote communities were already living under deprivation before the earthquakes, which reflected the limitation of the livelihood system’s flexibility to sustain damages from significant catastrophes [46]. Furthermore, during the earthquakes, their only resources for recovery were destroyed [46] and, due to the remoteness of their location, services were not provided for several weeks afterwards [47]. The destruction of the health infrastructure and the already limited human resources led to greater difficulties in the provision of essential services [9].…”

Policing in pandemics: A systematic review and best practices for police response to COVID-19

“…These range from formal actors such as emergency response services to informal ones such as civil society organisations, community groups, and NGOs [ 71 ]. As such, coordination demands not only clear structures for the former, but also a hybrid mechanism and a coherent yet flexible communication structure [ 69 , 136 ]. An example of such hybrid structures of formal and informal institutions is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, where not only state structures but also community groups, volunteers, and religious groups were involved in delivering a response [ 69 ].…”