Dr. Krishna Devkota /Ghanashyam Khanal

We were successful in containing COVID-19 by identifying transmission chains with the help of widespread testing and contact tracing,” said Baldev Chaudhari, Mayor of Triyuga Municipality of Udayapur. Chaudhari said that his office mobilised the local people in different layers of anti-pandemic campaign that included isolating new cases and quarantining. The municipality is in the limelight for its exemplary efforts to overcome the threat of deadly virus.
With the second largest number of COVID-19 cases in the world, India has been fighting the virus. India's Kerala State, which had reported first virus case in the country, won applause for successfully containing it by mobilising the local people. In a similar vein, in New Zealand, the central, regional and local governments worked in unison to effectively stamp out the virulent virus. This shows the role of subnational governments in dealing with the pandemic.
Managing disasters is similar to that of the handling of pandemics like COVID-19. Nepal’s constitution has clearly outlined the role of different institutions from central to local level in the management of disasters. The federal level disaster management mechanism includes Disaster Risk Reduction and Management National Council, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Executive Committee and National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority. Besides, the state level disaster management committee, district level disaster management committee and municipal level disaster management committee exist at the state and local levels respectively. Ward-level disaster preparedness and response committee can be formed to raise awareness and respond to disasters at the community level.

Capacity building
The federalisation process affords ample opportunities to strengthen the roles of local bodies in the disaster management. Local governments themselves are tasked with drafting their own disaster management plan and policies including disaster preparedness and response strategies. Schedule 8 of the constitution enlists disaster management as an exclusive jurisdiction of local governments. Similarly, section 11(2) of the Local Government Operation Act (LGA) provides a list of disaster management-related functions of the local governments. Among these functions, there are 12 specific authorities involved in making plans and policies for disaster preparedness, mapping of risk areas and relocation, mobilising municipal police for rescue and relief, coordinating with state and federal governments and non-governmental organizations and collecting data and conducting research.
Still the jurisdictions of three-tier government are not clearly defined when it comes to the response and management of disasters. Particularly, the sharing of information and responsibilities between the state and local levels has not been clearly drawn. As a result, there lacks a standard communication protocol between the chairs of federal, state and local government committees and Chief District Officers. There are other challenges, too. First, the local governments show lack of interest and capacities for disaster risk management (DRM). Sometimes, local governments face difficulties in mapping and having knowledge about disaster risks and vulnerabilities of their societies and appropriate DRM measures. Partners such as national government and development partners can help the local governments to strengthen their capacity to better plan and manage local disaster risks.
Second, the local governments are responsible for maintaining and upgrading important infrastructures such as the supply of drinking water, drainage and sewer system, schools and hospitals to make them resilient to disaster risks but they have not shown efficiency i n these tasks. In order to properly address disaster risks, capital investment planning should be made robust based on sound risk assessment. Even though local governments target resilient development, they do not have adequate capital, trained human resources and planning strategy. Third, as a long-term process, a DRM initiative in the Nepali context often suffers from frequent staff changes and uneven interests among them. Long-term political commitment is crucial to successfully implement DRM programmes. Fourth, with the onset of disasters, people are tempted to focus on short-term visible recovery activities. Learning from previous disasters and building long-term DRM efforts is often a very effective way to engage local governments and communities.
As the disaster is itself a local phenomenon, the local governments need to strengthen their capacities in every way they can. It is because local people are themselves the very first victims of any disasters. In this context, the local government should play a central role in coordinating and sustaining a multi-level, multi-stakeholder platform to promote DRM in the community. When comprehensive DRM measures take a long time to implement, the local government leadership is particularly vital to maintain political momentum and muster support from among external stakeholders during the process.
The effective engagement of local communities and citizens is essential in DRM activities and link their concerns with government's priorities. Considering the role of the immediate public service provider, the local governments are naturally situated in the better position to raise people's awareness of disaster risk management and listen to their concerns. Sometimes, even the most sophisticated national DRM measures like early warning systems may fail and instigate more intense disasters if the communities are not properly informed and prepared. Similarly, community preparedness measures need considerable investment in reducing casualties from disasters. It is imperative for the local governments to educate and train the people in this regard.

Innovative tools
Devising and implementing innovative tools and techniques for DRM which can be replicated elsewhere or scaled up nationwide is another area on which the local governments have to put their efforts. A local government, in association with the state and national government, is better positioned to advance and investigate various new tools and techniques at the local level, with its unique settings and policy priorities because of its smaller scale and flexibility.
Despite having institutional set-up at every level of government, it is an arduous task for local government to implement the DRM strategies as envisaged in the constitution. Being a long-term process, strengthening local government is possible, and in turn, responding to DRM strategies by allocating required funds for the disaster, enhancing the will power of the leadership, adopting scientific land use planning, implementing existing building code at the local level and encouraging local people for disaster resilient developmental practices become viable.

(Dr. Devkota, a disaster risk management expert, is associated with Global Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, Kathmandu. kesandevkota@gmail.com and Khanal is lecturer of Economics at Morgan International Collage, Kathmandu. gskhanal44@gmail.com )