3 results
6 - Humanitarian Responses of I/NGOs after the 2015 Earthquakes: Empirical Evidence from Gorkha, Sindhupalchok, and Southern Lalitpur
- Edited by Michael Hutt, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Mark Liechty, University of Illinois, Stefanie Lotter, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
-
- Book:
- Epicentre to Aftermath
- Published online:
- 08 July 2021
- Print publication:
- 05 August 2021, pp 135-150
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The aftermath of World War II saw a proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) worldwide. Like other countries in the Global South, Nepal too saw a rise in the number of I/NGOs after 1990, under institution-building and civil-society-strengthening projects designed to foster participatory democracy, good governance, and development (Frewer 2013; Suleiman 2013, cited in Jones et al. 2014). While some argue that the Nepali term nagarik samaj is equivalent to the English term ‘civil society’ and that the term came into use mainly after 1990 (Shah 2008), M. S. Tamang (2017) notes that the concept of civil society emerged in the context of the struggle against the Panchayat system to protect the rights of people as equal citizens, which culminated in the political change of 1990. This ‘civil society’ comprised a wide array of traditional self-help groups, human rights and professional organizations, ethnic and caste-based advocacy groups, and collectives of independent individuals aiming to achieve specific goals. In many instances these functioned very similarly to I/NGOs (M. S. Tamang 2017). Furthermore, Heaton-Shrestha and Adhikari (2011) stress that these organizations’ everyday works were often evaluated as performances which led to them being perceived as ‘political’ by state authorities during the struggle against King Gyanendra's direct rule after 2005.
Increasingly, I/NGOs may be seen to be serving as alternatives for government (Lassa 2018), which is typically characterized as ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘elite-centred’ (D. Lewis 2014 in Carrasco and O’Brien 2018). In Nepal, NGOs tend to be associated with groups in civil society which lack a broad membership. Some have criticized them for being undemocratic and lacking accountability and transparency (J. Ghimire 2008: 91; Shah 2008; S. Tamang 2005, cited in Baniya 2014); it is alleged that they work under the direction of foreign agents and lack autonomy (Dahal, 2001:113). Panday argues that, because major policies are formulated by foreigners in the headquarters of bilateral and multilateral aid organizations, Nepal's bureaucracy does not have any influence in the process. This not only undermines state institutions, but also distracts the state's attention away from public programmes and services (Panday 1999, 2011, cited in Baniya 2014)
3 - Expertise, Labour, and Mobility in Nepal's Post-Conflict, Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Law, Construction, and Finance as Domains of Social Transformation
- Edited by Michael Hutt, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Mark Liechty, University of Illinois, Stefanie Lotter, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
-
- Book:
- Epicentre to Aftermath
- Published online:
- 08 July 2021
- Print publication:
- 05 August 2021, pp 49-86
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
How have people affected by Nepal's 2015 earthquakes experienced the reconstruction process on the ground? This chapter draws on ethnographic data collected during Nepal's post-earthquake reconstruction to inform theoretical questions about relationships between expertise, labour, and mobility in shaping post-disaster outcomes, including broader societal transformations. Based on a collaborative research project conducted between 2017 and 2020 in three of Nepal's earthquake-affected districts (Bhaktapur, Dhading, and Sindhupalchok), we point to legal, material, and financial processes that constitute lived experiences of reconstruction at the household level.
Since its inception in 2017, our project has explored the domains of law, construction, and finance to ask: How successful has Nepal's ‘owner-driven’ reconstruction model for households been at ensuring positive outcomes, on material, sociocultural, and subjective levels? How have domestic (that is, Nepali national) professionals, such as engineers, lawyers, and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff, served as mediators between earthquake-affected community members and institutional actors implementing reconstruction at the scale of local governance? How have relations of power and their material outcomes been negotiated? How have worldviews and practices been reshaped along the way? And how have fluctuating labour markets and conditions of high mobility shaped these interactions?
Such questions are important both for evaluating the often contradictory outcomes of reconstruction's multiple interventions and for examining the wider sociopolitical context of disaster and relief projects, such as Nepal's post-conflict process of state restructuring that devolved power to local governments in 2017. In this context, we suggest that political and material transformations—at local, regional, and national levels—must be understood as intersecting with each other, rather than as separate trajectories.
As detailed in the introduction to this volume (Liechty and Hutt), Nepal's earthquakes struck at a period of protracted political impasse which politicized and delayed the establishment of a central state agency to coordinate relief efforts by nearly seven months. The National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) only unveiled its first ‘four-phase plan’ in January 2016, and it took another three months for the first housing grants to be released, not least because an entire infrastructure of relief coordination needed to be erected (The Kathmandu Post 2015b, 2016c)
5 - Disaster, Deceptions, Dislocations: Reflections from an Integrated Settlement Project in Nepal
- Edited by Michael Hutt, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Mark Liechty, University of Illinois, Stefanie Lotter, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
-
- Book:
- Epicentre to Aftermath
- Published online:
- 08 July 2021
- Print publication:
- 05 August 2021, pp 110-134
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Disasters, as well as post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, have sociopolitical implications (Hörhager 2015; Oliver-Smith 1996; Simpson 2013) and flawed or coercive reconstruction strategies can have negative economic, political, and sociocultural impacts (Oliver-Smith 1991). Based on a range of case studies, scholars have argued that for reconstruction and resettlement to be a success, understanding a local context and consulting with and enhancing the participation of an affected community prior to the design and implementation of a rehousing or settlement policy is extremely important (Oliver-Smith 1991; Razani 1984). International frameworks such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (UNISDR 2005), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (UNISDR 2015), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2016–2030 (UN 2016) have also recognized the importance of the involvement, participation, and consultation of affected people and communities in the planning and implementation of policies and strategies for disaster risk reduction and response. This is because it helps not only to increase a sense of ownership of reconstruction, but also to enhance legitimacy and accountability. Reconstruction and resettlement plans and designs that are uniform and imposed from outside, without any consultation or consideration of local and indigenous social systems and cultural contexts, can have adverse impacts on disaster-affected people and communities (Oliver-Smith 1991: 16) and their social articulations (Duyne Barenstein 2006), identity, and traditional lives (Oliver-Smith 1991).
Similarly, providing inadequate space for culturally important ritual practices and for personal privacy (Razani 1984), for sheds, animal pens, and other agricultural needs (Razani 1984; Oliver-Smith 1991) and locating reconstructed dwellings at an excessive distance from kin and neighbours (Razani 1984) also lead to dissatisfaction and the failure of a reconstruction project. Community-led reconstruction processes, based on the framework and principles of rights-based reconstruction, the participation of local people, and owner-driven reconstruction are intrinsic parts of building back better. Owner-driven reconstruction is also more cost-efficient, culturally appropriate, and sustainable as compared with other methods of housing reconstruction (Duyne Barenstein and Iyengar 2009).