Political (and some other) priorities in Nepal as of 28 April 2015

Reflections from Kathmandu by John Bevan, a friend and former UN official who has worked in Haiti – before and after the 2010 nepal_earthquakequake, as well as Nepal (2003/4 and 2006/7). This piece does not represent Oxfam’s official views, but offers a fascinating insight into what is likely to happen next.

Today is day four of the emergency and the search and rescue period, at least in Kathmandu, is past its peak. Yesterday I went to the minaret style lookout tourist tower where quite a few people died—there was no sign of anyone still doing search and rescue, SandR as we know it here. Clearly there has been little, probably no SandR in rural areas where it is most needed and few rapid assessments.

My personal assessment is that in Kathmandu the damage has been cruel but relatively limited compared to the devastation of Port au Prince in 2010, which of course is not a very useful reference point as it was such an exceptional event. Government figures suggest that almost half of the reported 6,000 victims are from the Kathmandu valley and maybe one or two of the most affected districts. It is not yet clear what the total toll is. It is unfortunate that the media have been concentrating on the dramatic impact on temples and other religious building as this gives a distorted image of the situation. Remarkably few modern, concrete, buildings have been affected in the capital. In the countryside, however, most buildings are old, made of mud or weak bricks and stand on vertiginous slopes. These are the remote hill villages which it would appear have borne the main brunt of the quake, at least according to government statements.

Immediate and medium-term priorities:

Nepal earthquake 2The immediate problem I see is the dearth of rapid assessments in the hill villages, on which of course all action and prioritization depends. To be fair, this is no easy task in this event as I understand that the fault is about 150 km long, in nice terrain for trekking but very difficult areas to track. I am told that this is the pre-planting season in the hills so there is an urgent need to support the peasants to avoid the loss of a whole season’s crop. This would obviously lead to great problems for these food-deficient smallholder farmers. An additional consequence could be an intensification of the already strong urban drift.

For reasons described below, an important measure in ensuring the relief and then reconstruction are effective, just and transparent is the involvement from the start of renowned figures from civil society with the credibility to provide trustworthy oversight of the use of funds—this cannot be left to a conclave of state officials and their party bosses and colleagues.

Now is also the time to have a serious think about the medium-term. A single sentence characterization of the current political set-up in Nepal would be something like: high level of political party membership and influence with each party vying for power through support based on patronage networks, nepotism and cronyism in parties which are almost all led by traditional elites and their loyalty networks. Such political polarization and petty power struggles are antithetical to a decent reconstruction effort.

  • Mitigating measures are an essential and daunting task. Over the next one to two weeks, this involves:
  • Government of Nepal allowing neutral, reputed aid agencies with experience in first-response to travel freely and quickly, and combining their assessments with those of local government officials;
  • Donors reaching consensus on minimum standards both for oversight of government performance and in terms of their own transparency;
  • Government of Nepal defining clearly the movement and decisions of representatives of armed forces of other countries.
  • Beginning now and continuing on a regular basis:
  • Frank self-evaluation by donors of the integrity of their programmes over the last decade;
  • Avoiding the disastrous impact of the “All Party Mechanisms”, APMs, through which money was channeled at district level and below following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006—it is well documented that these APMs (curiously close to ATMs!) were effectively a way of splitting funds between the parties with most local influence. They were officially ‘disbanded’ a few years ago though the practice of the political divvying up of state funds continues informally till now.


A careful comparison should be made of the aid disbursement mechanisms set up to ‘guarantee good governance’ with what nepal earthquake 3happened to donor funds post the January 2010 Haiti earthquake. It looked good on paper but was dogged by disputes, largely with Haitians feeling excluded and unheard. It did not survive the 2010/11 elections and change of government. It proved slow and clunky; financial oversight was so extreme that it effectively disabled the mechanism and even then there are many accusations of favouritism in the award of contracts.

Big-picture, systemic challenges:

This is the context, which is easier to describe than to remedy. At this point, maintaining “systems” and doing “business as usual”, but just a bit faster and better, are seen as massive net positives, demonstrating to the population that the bureaucracy and state are still running etc. It is debatable if they demonstrate any such thing – anger is already building in parts of Kathmandu and in some hill villages which it has been possible to contact, where populations feel ignored, feel that there IS no government they can see, to say nothing of the very badly affected districts, from where the true picture has barely begun emerging– but the urge, in the name of strategic planning, is to huddle, reinforce old behaviours and say that emergencies are not the time for reform.

One key factor is the conflation of the term ‘independent’ with the term ‘all party’.

Donors should be aware that broad party involvement should not be confused with representativeness. Exemplary of this is the naming by the political parties of place-people to statutory bodies including the national human rights commission and the recently-named Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This way of negotiating political patronage networks and influence leads to a discrediting of such bodies, which are not perceived as legitimate or independent, given how often candidates are perceived to be named as a political reward rather than on merit.

Coordination of the multiplicity of relief efforts is essential, as is not weakening the government further, ensuring lack of duplication and parity of coverage, streamlining operations etc. But this cannot be conflated with what have become policy positions for the Finance and Home Ministries: to exert full Government of Nepal control, with all the implications spelled out above, over all national and international funding; and to attempt to micro manage what international agencies can do, and where and when they can do it, again with all the implications spelled out above and below for patronage, graft and inefficient and unfairly balanced reconstruction efforts.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


12 Responses to “Political (and some other) priorities in Nepal as of 28 April 2015”
  1. Michael Wells

    Same donors as usual? Surely Nepal’s large neighbours India and China have the SandR resources and equipment to help with helicopters, food and medical supplies to traumatised and so far inaccessible remote villages. Why isn’t this happening – or perhaps it is and it is not being reported? Six helicopters from India according to the NY Times? Why not 50? Is this politics, inefficiency, something else?

  2. John Bevan

    There are great sensitivities here in Nepal over issues of sovereignty and foreign interference- some well founded, others used opportunistically
    I don’t have access to OCHA centralised data on contributions to date but have heard that China sent some specialist teams and I think India has sent a lot of troops
    But in uncharacteristic antagonistic tone, one English daily, the Himalayan Times, had the following headlinesPM announces three days’ mourning
    Govt makes mess of relief work
    Victims bear brunt of official apathy
    and PM Koirala yesterday said that ‘This tragedy has taught us that we need organizational management in natural disaster management’. I wonder what those who have been providing such support for years, particularly intensely since Haiti 2010

  3. John Bevan

    And social media if full of people in rural areas saying that there is no government at all.

    An INGOs was told by a Nepali today that ‘if the aid goes through local government, none will get to my stomach’

  4. Amish Mulmi

    An excellent piece reflective of the situation on the ground; I’d just like to add that donor nations have always had an influence on the Nepali government, and therefore, in the medium- to long-term, the foreign aid and grants could be made incumbent on the reconstruction and the rehabilitation process. Transparency and accountability will be demanded, but until local residents are consulted over whether funds have been utilized to their benefit, we will not know more whether the government’s disbursements have been used for reconstruction, or for political patronage and graft.

  5. vikram

    most of the place are still yet to be identified since due to lack of road. its time of rescuing through air, there is no time waiting for experts, if they don’t have way to go,so it would be better to divert some funds to borrowing helicopters…and human participation would be commendable if they offer some comforting talks to the victims and use their source to divert the resource

  6. John Bevan

    I am informed by a major reputable health INGO that bureaucracy is making it v difficult for them to get helicopter permissions which could be delaying their response

    Govt should be fully informed and be key to coordination but should not impede the arrival of assistance unnecessarily

  7. Irantzu

    The international community and donors should have learnt many lessons in Nepal by now from the many mistakes they have committed starting from a lack of accountability mechanisms as to how money has been spent by GoN and local authorities.
    It is now time for urgent and rapid response and actions, and hopefully this tragedy will also serve to bring about significant changes in the mindset and behaviour of the international community and donors. Un abrazo grande John! Animo y cuidate! Ojala yo tambien estuviese en Nepal!

  8. nkrumah

    Frank self-evaluation by donors of the integrity of their programmes over the last decade- absolutely! So called contingency planning even had locations for tents all identified, so this is a spectacular failure. I like the idea of donors allocating resources for consultancies to be hired by donors to evaluate themselves and not Nepali institutions (which have been evaluated till death) for a change, lol

  9. Irantzu

    The international community and donors should have learnt many lessons in Nepal by now from the many mistakes they have committed starting from a lack of accountability mechanisms as to how money has been spent by GoN and local authorities.
    It is now time for urgent and rapid response and actions, and hopefully this tragedy will also serve to bring about significant changes in the mindset and behaviour of the international community and donors. Un abrazo grande John! Cuidate y hablamos pronto. Ojala yo tambien estuviese en Nepal

  10. John Bevan

    Predictably from today’s the Himalayan Times

    front page lead

    “To avoid any misuse of relief distribution, the governments planning to mobilise an
    all party mechanism, added Rijal (min for information and communication, JB). Parliamentary teams will also monitor this he said”

    Splitting up the earthquake dividend as per…….

  11. John Bevan

    KATHMANDU, APR 29 – The number of people leaving Kathmandu valley due to the fear of earthquake and epidemic diseases has significantly increased.

    According to Metropolitan Traffic Police Division (MTPD), 338,932 people have left the valley by Wednesday.
    these people should be seen as IDPs and assisted, this might also encourage them to stay away from Kathmandu taking off some of the pressure on the inadequate infrastructure in the capital. As usual people only think about areas where buildings have collapse and fail to think about strategies for the less obvious consequences

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.