|
Synthesis Report
Independent Impacts and
Recovery Monitoring Phase 4
April 2017
K d 13 i J *-n2f' . iw fl ji&d L w â– k \\ 'i
dhk *â– *
â– *1 Pt
< rw fii
V Mt. < w jBkL 7
SctiweizeriEche E icgenosseriEchafl
Confedoraiion suisso
Confrforabone Svizzera
The Asia Foundation
UKaid
from the British people
ConfederaziLim svizra
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC
MFr tit'W', Rtwt *1(441’1
Synthesis Repo
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4:
Synthesis Report: April 2017
Schwedterische EidgenoasenachaR
ConfMeralion emsse
CcmFecferazione Svizzera
CunFedsrazium svizra
The Asia Foundation
UKaid
from the British people
Federal Department! ar Foreign Affairs FDFA
Swiss Agent/ for DsveFopment and Cooperallon SOC
iv rtpt ■'■‘liRR
The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit international development organization committed to improving lives across a dynamic and developing
Asia. Informed by six decades of experience and deep local expertise, our work across the region addresses five overarching goals—
strengthen governance, empower women, expand economic opportunity, increase environmental resilience, and promote regional
cooperation. Headquartered in San Francisco, The Asia Foundation works through a network of offices in 18 Asian countries and in
Washington, DC.
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4
Synthesis Report
© The Asia Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
without written permission from The Asia Foundation
The Asia Foundation
456 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA U.S.A. 94104
www.asiafoundation.org
The project is funded by UK aid through the UK government and the Swiss Development Cooperation.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the UK or the Swiss government’s official policies.
Cover photo: Chiran Manandhar
Design: Deddeaw Laosinchai
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
PREFACE
In 2015, two powerful earthquakes hit Nepal, killing
almost 9,000 people and displacing hundreds of
thousands more. Since then, The Asia Foundation
has been tracking how those affected by the earth-
quakes have recovered. Four rounds of research, con-
ducted at roughly six-month intervals, have provided
snap shots of conditions on the ground, including the
challenges people face, the aid they are receiving and
the extent to which they are coping.
This report presents findings from the fourth round of
research, which involved qualitative fieldwork and a
quantitative household survey in April 2017. Because
the same wards are visited in each round, with the
same people interviewed, the report gives an accurate
picture of how things have changed as time has passed.
The findings show there has been some progress in
supporting recovery. The incomes of most of those
affected by the earthquake have continued to recovery
and local markets are operating almost as normal.
Drops in food consumption, identified in earlier rounds
of research, are now less pronounced than before. The
disbursement of the first tranche of the government’s
housing grant has led some to start rebuilding.
Yet the reports also show the scale of the challenges
that remain. Two years on from the earthquakes, the
majority of those whose houses suffered major damage
or complete destruction remain in temporary shelters.
Rising construction costs have prevented many from
beginning to rebuild and people are increasingly bor-
rowing from informal lenders who charge high interest
rates. It is likely that many people will get stuck in a
debt trap, unable to repay the loans they have taken.
Most public infrastructure has not been rebuilt.
The reports also show a worrying divergence in the
experience of different groups; this requires urgent
policy attention. There are growing disparities in levels
of recovery among different socio-economic groups,
with many of the marginalized being left behind.
Those who had low incomes before the earthquakes,
e.g. Dalits, the disabled and widows, score lower
than others on most recovery indicators. Indeed, the
earthquakes appear to have exacerbated preexisting
inequalities. More needs to be done to help these
vulnerable groups.
We thank our research partners (Democracy Resource
Center Nepal and Interdisciplinary Analysts), our
donor partners (UK Department for International
Development and the Swiss Development Coopera-
tion), and Nepali government officials in the National
Reconstruction Authority and the Ministry of Federal
Affairs and Local Development for their support.
George Varughese, Ph.D.
Nepal Country Representative
The Asia Foundation
Patrick Barron, Ph.D.
Regional Director for Conflict & Development
The Asia Foundation
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Acknowledgements
The Asia Foundation wishes to express its
appreciation to the many people who made
this report possible, particularly those in the
eleven districts where the study was conducted who
were interviewed or who otherwise participated in
the research.
The qualitative fieldwork and analysis was conducted
by Democracy Resource Center Nepal (DRCN). The
DRCN team was led by Sudip Pokharel. The research
was coordinated by Apurba Khatiwada of DRCN.
Analysis of the data was done by Amanda Manandhar
Gurung, Apurba Khatiwada, Charlotte Ramble and
Lena Michaels, who co-authored the report with
James Sharrock. Special thanks goes to the team of
researchers for their dedication in the field: the senior
researchers Chiran Manandhar, Ishwari Bhattarai,
Nayan Pokhrel, Shekhar Parajulee and Subhash
Lamichhane; and the researchers Alok Pokharel,
Punam Limbu and Tanka Gurung.
The quantitative survey was implemented by a team
from Interdisciplinary Analysts (IDA) led by Sud-
hindra Sharma. While Sudhindra provided overall
guidance, Hiranya Baral coordinated the survey
fieldwork, Bal Krishna Khadka provided essential
support in thinking through the implications of the
technical aspects of the survey methodology, Chandra
KC worked on getting the dataset in a form ready for
analysis and generated a large set of initial tables, and
Sandeep Thapa designed the software for data entry.
Kurt Burja of the World Food Programme provided
NeKSAP data. Analysis of the data was done by Anup
Phayal, Jui Shrestha and Patrick Barron, who co-au-
thored the report.
George Varughese provided useful inputs at various
stages. Deddeaw Laosinchai designed the report.
The project is funded by UK aid through the UK
government and the Swiss Development Coopera-
tion, with support from the UK Department for In-
ternational Development’s Programme Partnership
Arrangement with The Asia Foundation. Craig Irwin
(UK DFID) and Stefan Fuerst (SDC) have managed
the project from the donor side, and have given
useful inputs at every stage. The views here do not
necessarily reflect the UK or the Swiss government’s
official policies.
The IRM research is directed by Patrick Barron with
assistance from Sasiwan Chingchit. Lena Michaels
coordinates the project in Nepal with support from
The Asia Foundation-Nepal.
iv
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Executive Summary
This synthesis report combines and summa-
rizes findings from the fourth wave of the
Independent Impacts and Recovery Moni-
toring for Accountability in Post-Earthquake Nepal
(IRM), a longitudinal mixed method research project
designed to monitor aid impacts and patterns of re-
covery in earthquake-affected areas. The first round
of research was conducted in June 2015, the second
in February-March 2016 and the third in September
2016. Fielding of the fourth round was carried out in
eleven affected districts for the quantitative survey
and in four districts for the qualitative component in
April 2017. Districts included those in four categories
of earthquake impact identified by the government’s
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment: severely hit districts
(those most affected), crisis hit districts (second high-
est impact category), hit with heavy losses districts
(third category), and a hit district (the least impacted
of those affected).
Recovery
Housing and shelter. Data from the four rounds
of IRM research show that progress of people moving
from temporary shelters to homes has been slow.
Seventy-four percent of people in earthquake-affected
areas now live in their own homes compared to 60% in
the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes. However,
62% of those in severely impacted districts and 44% of
those whose house was completely damaged still live
in temporary shelters. The marginalized—low caste,
low income groups, widows and the disabled—and
those who live in more remote areas are more likely
to remain in shelters and have found it much harder
to move home. Lacking support from the government,
and sometimes unwelcome in their temporary
settlements, many formerly displaced have taken
risks moving back to unsafe land or bought new land
by taking large loans.
Most shelters are now made of CGI and people feel
they are inadequate for longer-term living. Those
in less remote areas are more likely to have better
quality shelters than those living in more remote
place. Although most people say they were able to
make their shelters ready for the last winter, those
who were unable to fix their shelters, who tend to
be marginalized groups, were more likely to have
someone in their household fall ill.
Fifty-six percent of people whose house sustained
complete or major damage have not yet started
rebuilding. People in high impact districts, of low caste
or low income and widows are less likely than other
groups to do so. Lack of money (93%) and waiting for
government’s Rural Housing Reconstructing Program
(RHRP) cash grant (43%) remain the most common
reason for not rebuilding. People in high impact
districts, who live in more remote areas, people of low
caste and widows were more likely to say that they were
still waiting for the government cash grant before they
started to rebuild. Costs for reconstruction continue
to rise with high transportation costs in remote areas
and a shortage of trained construction labor. Faster
rebuilding rates were observed in wards with greater
outside assistance and internal community support
systems like parma.
Infrastructure and service delivery. Access to
public services has improved since the immediate
aftermath of the disaster. However, since then, there
have not been significant changes in the proportion
of people reporting they have access to most services.
The one exception is access to drinking water which
saw a decline by 9 percentage points between IRM-3
and IRM-4. Highest levels of dissatisfaction are with
drinking water and roads. Lack of resources and poor
coordination due to a lack of clarity on the decision-
making powers of district offices and their relationship
to the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) have
hampered infrastructure reconstruction.
Livelihoods. Most people continue to see improve-
ments in their income sources but the proportion
seeing improvements in the past three months has
declined for most sources compared to IRM-3. Daily
wage workers, business owners and remittance receiv-
V
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
ers are the most likely to see improvements. People
in more affected districts are more likely to have seen
their income decline since the earthquakes. Over half
of the population in Sindhupalchowk and Gorkha re-
port that their current income is lower than before the
earthquakes. People who live in more remote areas,
who sustained more housing damage or who still live
in temporary shelters are more likely than others to
have lower incomes now than before the earthquakes.
People with a higher income before the earthquake are
more likely to have seen income recovery. There has
been a decline in the number of people who generate
income through farming and an increase in the num-
ber generating income through their own business,
daily wage work or remittances.
Food. There has been a steady drop in food demand
since IRM-1 and far fewer stated that they need food
aid in IRM-4 than in the previous round. However,
food remains an acute need in some areas and for
certain groups of people: those in severely impacted
districts, more remote areas and of low caste and low
pre-earthquake income. Food consumption appears
to be improving. Only 6 percent report a decrease and
they are likely to be people in severely hit districts, of
low caste or low income and women.
Trauma. The number of people reporting that a
family member is suffering psychological effects from
the earthquakes has decreased in all areas, dropping
from 23% in IRM-3 to 15% in IRM-4. Those with a low
income are facing more difficulty in recovering from
psychological impacts.
Aid delivery
Aid coverage. Aid coverage increased between IRM-
3 and IRM-4 after a sharp drop in aid between IRM-2
and IRM-3. This was largely due to the distribution of
the first installment of the housing grant. More remote
areas received more aid since IRM-2 onwards but
many remote villages also missed out. People belong-
ing to higher castes continue to be less likely to have
received aid compared to Janajatis and lower castes.
As income rises, the likelihood of having received aid
decreases sharply in all four survey rounds.
The number of people saying relief is or will be needed
in the near future has increased especially in crisis
hit districts. The government continued to be the
top aid provider since the earthquake. Among those
who received aid since the 2016 monsoon, cash was
the most cited aid item received. The share of people
receiving cash from the government increased only
slightly suggesting that the housing grant was gen-
erally targeted at those who previously received cash
from the government. Since the earthquakes struck,
people on average have received cash grants of NPR
56,845 from the government and NPR 13,082 from
non-governmental sources.
People’s needs in earthquake-affected areas.
Cash and items to reconstruct people’s houses were
most frequently stated as current priority needs by
survey respondents. The share mentioning cash as
either a current or future need has continued to grow.
Those in remote areas, in temporary shelters and with
lower incomes were more likely to say they need cash.
Those interviewed for the qualitative research also
mentioned the need for better information on aid in
general and the housing grant process, in particular,
as well as on resettlement plans and the outcomes of
geological land assessments.
Satisfaction with aid distribution and com-
munication. Levels of satisfaction with aid providers
remained lower compared to the early months after
the earthquakes with few changes between September
2016 (IRM-3) and April 2017 (IRM-4). Satisfaction
with the central government increased slightly but
remains below levels seen in the first year after the
earthquakes. Levels of satisfaction with INGOs and
NGOs stayed the same between IRM-3 and IRM-4.
In the qualitative research, rising levels of satisfaction
with I/NGOs were observed in IRM-4 compared to the
previous research round. The percentage of people
saying they believe that all can get aid according to
their needs remained at a similar level (55%). Those
who disagreed thought that low castes, Janajatis and
the disabled were getting less aid. Neighbors, the radio
and VDC secretaries remained the primary sources of
information on aid. In both IRM-3 and IRM-4, most
thought that ease of communication with various aid
providers was bad or at best okay. The central govern-
ment, INGOs, and foreign governments were among
the most likely to be rated poorly.
The damage assessment and housing grants.
Satisfaction with the most recent damage assessment
by the Central Bureau of Statistics was higher in
severely hit districts and among those whose house had
been listed as fully damaged. Nearly all of those who
were declared eligible for the RHRP grant had received
the first installment by April 2017. The majority of
beneficiaries found it easy or at least somewhat easy
to access their first installment of the housing grant.
Common reasons for difficulties in accessing banks
were delays in processing documentation at the
VDC office, missing documentation, and long travel
distances/remoteness. Those wrongly excluded from
beneficiary lists generally had not yet received their
first installment even if they had filed a grievance form.
The majority of those declared eligible for the housing
grant knew of the increase in the size of the grant from
NRP 200,000 to NRP 300,000. However, around
half of those who received the first installment of
vi
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
the housing grant said they were unaware of the re-
quirements they had to fulfill to receive the second
tranche. Earthquake affected people interviewed in the
qualitative research said they needed better and more
timely information on the housing cash grant process,
especially on grievances, building requirements and
access to soft loans.
The distribution of the first installment of the housing
grant was a key factor in increasing reconstruction
efforts in late 2016 and early 2017. But this positive
impact was offset by the slow distribution of and
uncertainty about who would qualify for further
installments. A majority of people who said they had
received the first tranche of the housing grant said
they had done nothing to start rebuilding, most likely
because of a lack of cash and high building costs.
Across all districts, just 37% of people said they are
using/will use the grant for the intended purpose of
building a new house using an accepted model, a drop
from 44% in IRM-3. Most of those who got the first
tranche were somewhat confident that they would be
able to receive the second installment of the housing
grant but uncertainty about the second installment
was increasing.
Grievance management committees were formed but
inactive in most of the VDCs visited in the qualitative
research. Large numbers of complaints were being
passed back to the districts for further verification or
reassessment. In Gorkha and Sindhupalchowk some
complaints forms were lost. Despite improvements
in access to technical assistance since IRM-3, gaps
remained: several DUDBC engineer positions were
still vacant and people in remote wards struggled more
to receive technical advice. Deployed engineers faced
a variety of logistical challenges, which negatively
affected their work. Dissatisfaction with the quality of
the assistance provided, or the advice given, was com-
mon. Satisfaction with engineers was higher in VDCs
where engineers were more accessible. Compliance
with approved building designs and awareness of the
retrofitting grant and retrofitting options was low. A
lack of clarity on the respective responsibilities of dif-
ferent government bodies, coordinating mechanisms
and local NRA offices continued to hinder effective
coordination between them and reduce efficiency and
dissatisfaction with the roles of and coordination with
the NRA persisted at the local level.
IRM-i. Overall debt has also increased for 47% of
the people who took loans since the last monsoon.
Increases in debt are more common for people who
sustained more earthquake impact or who live in
remote areas.
As in previous surveys, those who had a low income
before the earthquake and individuals of low caste are
more likely to borrow than others. Borrowing in IRM-
4 has also increased among people with disabilities.
People who sustained greater damage to their house
and those who live in temporary shelters on other’s
land are also more likely to borrow.
Informal sources of credit are more common for
people living in more remote areas. Taking loans from
informal sources tend to be due to the lack of accessible
formal sources. Average monthly interest rates have
remained largely steady since the earthquake. While
supporting livelihood remains the most common
reason for borrowing, borrowing for reconstruction
has become more important in the past eight months
and correlates with levels of earthquake impact. The
share of people who plan to borrow in the next three
months continues to rise with people in more remote,
with more earthquake impact on housing, low income,
low caste and with a disability more likely to plan to
borrow. The same group, with exception of disabled,
are also more likely to become frequent borrowers.
Sale of assets. While only 4% of people said they
sold assets in IRM-2, and 3% in IRM-3,6% now report
having sold assets in the last eight months. Sales of
assets are most frequent in more affected districts and
remain highest in the severely hit districts.
Remittances and migration. More people have
identified remittances as main source of income,
especially among those living in remote areas and
those with high pre-earthquake income. Fifteen
percent of people in affected areas say remittances
were one of their main income sources in IRM-4,
compared to 9% in IRM-1. Migration levels remain
more or less the same and most who plan to migrate
tend to be from high impact districts. As construction
costs are very high, some have moved to work abroad
in order to help their family pay for rebuilding or to
repay loans.
Coping strategies
Borrowing. The number of people borrowing
continues to rise. Increases have been more sharp in
more affected and more remote areas. The average
amount people borrowed has increased over time.
Between IRM-3 and IRM-4, borrowers on average
took loans of NPR 363,193, a threefold increase since
Politics, social cohesion and conflict
Roles of political parties in the provision of aid.
The limited room for formal engagement of political
parties in the recovery and reconstruction processes at
the local level continues in IRM-4. Political parties had
not carried out any earthquake-related activities since
IRM-3 in any of the wards, VDCs or districts visited
during the qualitative research. The informal roles of
vii
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
political parties reported in IRM-3, which included pro-
viding logistical assistance in the reconstruction cash
grant agreement process, information dissemination,
leading protests on behalf of community members and
settling disputes between community members and lo-
cal officials were not observed during IRM-4. The pres-
ence of local political parties and their activities have
increased but this is primarily due to the restructuring
of local government units and the announcement of
local elections. People continue to remain disappointed
with political parties regarding their post-earthquake
role. More people were dissatisfied with how local po-
litical parties had informed them about aid than were
satisfied and people commonly thought that VDCs and
municipalities were not distributing aid fairly. People
who perceived that aid was distributed fairly by VDC/
municipality appear to be more likely to be satisfied
with political parties.
Local elections and local body restructuring.
People did not think that the creation of new local
units in place of existing municipalities and VDCs
would have a significant impact on the recovery and
reconstruction process. Preparations for the local elec-
tions, however, had an impact on the reconstruction
process. The main impact was the temporary suspen-
sion of the distribution of reconstruction cash grants,
NRA’s grievance management and NGOs’ and INGOs’
work. The local elections were also expected to impact
the availability of masons as some were employed
as police. With local elections approaching, visits by
elected officials in the earthquake areas increased.
Those whose house sustained major damage or com-
plete destruction were more likely to prefer candidates
who would focus on recovery and reconstruction. A
small proportion of respondents thought that elections
would not be free and fair. Booth capture and proxy
voting were their primary concerns. Beliefs that the
local election results would have a positive impact on
reconstruction were mixed. The majority either said
it would stay the same or get better. People in less
remote areas were more likely to believe there would
be no change in reconstruction work.
Security, crime and social cohesion. As in the
previous rounds of research, most people reported
that they felt safe and reports of violent incidents were
few and there have been very few reports of violent
incidents since the earthquakes. Social relations in
most affected areas remain good but trust is preserved
for people they know. As in previous surveys, there are
not substantive differences in perceptions of safety
between men and women. Most people believed that
people in the community would be willing to cooperate
in case of an emergency.
Focus areas and recommendations
The report presents independent recommendations
which are not necessarily those of the UK or Swiss
governments:
1) Reconstruction cash grants and household
reconstruction
• The government should communicate with
earthquake-affected households, local government
offices and citizens about timelines, procedures,
requirements, and technical standards during
the rebuilding process, especially on eligibility
for the second and third installments of the
reconstruction cash grants.
• A range of technical assistance support that goes
beyond masonry training needs to be provided
to households to help them build back safer and
become compliant with the requirements for the
second and third installments.
• Consider steps to further subsidize common
construction materials and labor, especially for
vulnerable and remote households. Measures
to reduce the transportation costs of common
construction materials should also be explored.
• Develop and communicate flexible plans
for households who may miss the deadline.
The deadline for completing all household
reconstruction by mid-2018 has the potential
to create additional confusion and also impact
building back better negatively.
• Find ways to continue reconstruction activities
during the application of the Election Code of
Conduct period in upcoming provincial and
national elections planned for November and
December 2017.
2) Access to cash and credit
• Ensure better awareness of and access to the
two government low interest loan schemes for
earthquake victims.
3) Need beyond reconstruction
• Continue to increase livelihoods support rather
than focusing assistance solely on housing grants.
Support for poor and struggling farmers is
particularly necessary in the form of farm inputs,
training and improving irrigation facilities.
• Increase attention on the reconstruction of physi-
cal infrastructure including damaged water sourc-
es, government offices, schools and health posts.
4) Resettlement of displaced households
• Communicate the results of geological surveys to
affected displaced communities, other locals and
local government officials.
viii
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
• Implement resettlement solutions in consultation
with permanently displaced communities. Such
plans need to be developed with the involvement
of local communities to avoid conflict and with
local authorities.
5) Support to vulnerable groups
• Vulnerable groups will likely take the longest to
rebuild and will need extra support to rebuild
their homes that goes beyond existing measures.
Discussions should start on the modalities of
extra support to the most vulnerable.
6) Coordination and local government
• Improve communication between government
offices by strengthening coordination mecha-
nisms, and information flow between the NRA
and government line ministries in Kathmandu,
districts headquarters and rural municipalities
(Gaupalika).
• Improve training on NRA policies and procedures
for local government officers at the Gaupalika and
district levels.
ix
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDO Chief District Officer
CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron
CL-PIU Central Level Project Implementation Unit
CPN-UML Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)
cs Can’t say
DAO District Administration Office
DCC District Coordination Committee
DDC District Development Committee
DFID UK Department for International Development
DK Don’t know
DL-PIU District Level Project Implementation Unit
DRCN Democracy Resource Center Nepal
DUDBC Department of Urban Development and Building Construction
HRRP Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform
IDA Interdisciplinary Analysts
INGO International non-governmental organization
IRM Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring for Accountability in Post-Earthquake Nepal Project
IRM-1 First round of the IRM study (June 2015)
IRM-2 Second round of the IRM study (February - March 2016)
IRM-3 Third round of the IRM study (September 2016)
IRM-4 Fourth round of the IRM study (April 2017)
LBRC Local Body Restructuring Commission
NeKSAP Nepal Food Security Monitoring Program
MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
MoUD Ministry of Urban Development
NGO Non-governmental organization
NPR Napali Rupees
NRA National Reconstruction Authority
PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
PDRF Post-Disaster Recovery Framework
RCC Reinforced Cement and Concrete
X
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
RHRP Rural Housing Reconstruction Program
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SLC School Leaving Certificate
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
VDC Village Development Committees
WCF Ward Citizen Forum
xi
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
LIST OF ACRONYMS X
LIST OF FIGURES XIII
LIST OF TABLES XV
LIST OF CASE STUDIES XVII
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Methodology 2
1.3 Contextual changes since September 2016 4
1.4 Report structure 6
Chapter 2. Recovery 7
2.1 Housing and shelter 7
2.2 Infrastructure and service delivery 14
2.3 Livelihoods 16
2.4 Food 20
2.5 Trauma 21
Chapter 3. Aid and the Housing Grants 23
3.1 Aid coverage 23
3.2 People’s needs in earthquake-affected areas 27
3.3 Satisfaction with aid distribution and communication 28
3.4 The damage assessment and housing grants 32
Chapter 4. Coping Strategies 47
4.1 Borrowing 47
4.2 Sale of assets 58
4.3 Remittances and migration 59
Chapter 5. Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict 61
5.1 Roles of political parties
in the provision of aid 61
5.2 Local elections and local body restructuring 64
5.3 Security, crime and social cohesion 68
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations 71
6.1 Overview of conclusions 71
6.2 Key focus areas and recommendations 74
Annex A. The current status of reconstruction 77
Housing reconstruction 77
xii
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Analytic framework 2
Figure 2.1: Where people were/are living (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted) 7
Figure 2,2: Share of people living in different types of shelters (IRM-2, IRM-3, 10
IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 2.3: Share of people preparing their shelters for winter (IRM-2, IRM-4)/ 11
monsoon (IRM-3) (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 2.4: Share of people who say someone in their family got sick due to shelter 12
issues - by where people were living (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Figure 2.5: Proportion who have not done anything to rebuild their damaged house - 13
by caste, pre-earthquake income, education, gender, widows and disability
(IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 2.6: Reasons for stopping repairing or not building a house (IRM-4, weighted) 14
Figure 2.7: Share of people within each income source whose income from that source 17
has improved (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 2,8: Income sources for people in affected areas (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, 19
IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 2.9: Food as a top immediate need and three month need (IRM-1, IRM-2, 20
IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.1: Share of people receiving some type of aid - by district impact 24
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.2: Share of people receiving some type of aid since the end of winter 2016 - 24
by district (IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.3: Source of aid amongst those who received aid (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, 25
IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.4: Share receiving cash from the government and non-governmental sources 26
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.5: Change in the share of people who agree that VDCs/municipalities have 29
been distributing aid fairly - by district impact (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3,
IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Figure 3.6: Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs 29
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 3.7: Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not 30
everyone is able to get aid equally (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 weighted)
Figure 4.1: Share of people who have borrowed - by remoteness (IRM-1, IRM-2, 48
IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4.2: Share of people who have borrowed - by pre-earthquake income 51
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4.3: Share of people who have borrowed - by housing damage (IRM-2, IRM-3, 52
IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4.4: Share of people who have borrowed - by where people live (IRM-2, IRM-3, 52
IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4.5: Reasons for borrowing, share of those borrowing (IRM-2, IRM-3, 53
IRM-4, weighted)
xiii
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Figure 4.6: Share of people who intend to borrow in the next three months - by gender, 55
widows, disability and housing damage (IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4,7: Unsuccessful borrowers - by caste and pre-earthquake income 57
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 4.8: Share of people who sold assets to cope with the earthquake impacts - 58
by district impact (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 5.1: Share unsure who to vote for - by whether elected officials visited area 65
(IRM-4, weighted)
Figure 5.2: Perceptions of security - by district impact (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 68
household panel, unweighted)
Figure 5.3: Share trusting different groups of people (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, 69
unweighted)
Figure 5.4: Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if 70
asked by the government in case of an emergency - by district impact
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
xiv
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Share of people living in shelters in IRM-2 who continue to live in shelters 8
in IRM-4 - by caste, pre-earthquake income, education, gender, widows
and disability (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, household panel, unweighted)
Table 2.2: Proportion whose house was destroyed or suffered major damage who
have done nothing to rebuild their damaged house - by district impact 12
and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 2.3: Access to clean drinking water - by district impact and district 15
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 2.4: Satisfaction with public services (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted) 15
Table 2.5: Current income (IRM-4) compared to pre-earthquake income (IRM-2) - 17
by district impact and district (IRM-4, IRM-2 household panel, unweighted)
Table 2.6: Food as a top immediate need and three month need - by district impact 20
and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 2.7: Changes in food consumption in the past eight months - by caste, 21
pre-earthquake income and gender (IRM4, weighted)
Table 2.8: Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquakes - 22
by pre-earthquake income, age, disability, gender, widows and caste
(IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Table 2.9: Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquakes - 22
by housing damage (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Table 3.1: Most mentioned current needs - by district impact and district 27
(IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3,2: Proportion satisfied with aid providers (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, 28
IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.3: Top five sources of information on aid - by district impact and district 30
(IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.4: Satisfaction with how aid providers have communicated about aid 31
(IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.5: Satisfaction with the most recent housing damage assessment - by district 32
and district impact (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.6: Share who received the first tranche of the RHRP grant among those who 33
say they were declared eligible - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.7: Ease of getting first tranche of NRA grant - by district impact and district 33
(IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.8: Knowledge of requirements to get the second tranche of RHRP grant 35
among those who got the first tranche - by district impact and district
(IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.9: Whether people have started rebuilding homes - by whether or not they 36
received the first tranche (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.10: Whether people who have received the first tranche of the RHRP grant have 38
started rebuilding - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.11: Share of rebuilding costs that the RHRP grant will cover - by district 38
impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.12: Use of/planned use of first tranche of RHRP grant among those declared 39
eligible to receive it - by district impact and district (IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 3.13: Confidence in getting the second tranche of the RHRP grant among those 40
who got the first tranche - by district and district impact (IRM-4, weighted)
xv
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Table 4.1: Share of people who have borrowed - by district impact and district 47
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 4.2: Average borrowing in NPR - by district impact and district (IRM-1, IRM-2, 49
IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 4.3: Overall debt - by caste and pre-earthquake income (IRM-4, weighted) 49
Table 4.4: Sources of borrowing among those who borrowed (IRM-1, IRM-2, 50
IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Table 4,5: Average borrowing in NPR - by sources (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, 50
IRM-4, weighted)
Table 4.6: Share of people who plan to borrow in the next three months - by district 55
impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 4,7: Overall debt - by borrowing frequency (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, 56
unweighted)
Table 4.8: Borrowing frequency - by housing damage (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, 56
unweighted)
Table 4.9: Borrowing frequency - by district impact, district and remoteness 57
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, unweighted)
Table 5.1: Satisfaction with local political parties since the last monsoon - by district 63
impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 5.2: Satisfaction with local political parties - by perceptions of whether 63
VDC/municipality has been distributing aid fairly (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 5.3: Satisfaction with how local political parties inform about aid - 64
by perceptions of whether VDC/municipality has been distributing aid
fairly (IRM-4 weighted)
Table 5.4: Factors determining voting choice - by district impact and district 66
(IRM-4, weighted)
Table 5.5: Factors determining voting choice - by housing damage (IRM-4, weighted) 66
Table 5.6: Outlook on earthquake reconstruction work as a result of the local 67
elections - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Table 5.7: Share saying there was a violent incident in their community - by district 69
impact and district (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Table A.i: Progress of private house reconstruction and cash grant distribution in 78
the research area as of September 2017
xv i
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
LIST OF CASE STUDIES
Case Study 2.1: The precariousness of displaced Dalit families in Prapcha VDC, Okhaldhunga 9
Case Study 3.1: A single woman unable to rebuild 26
Case Study 3.2: Man Bahadur’s struggle to rebuild 37
Case Study 3.3: Common questions on and complaints about the housing grant 41
Case Study 3.4: Low compliance with approved building designs 45
Case Study 4.1: Taking loans to rebuild houses 54
Case Study 4.2: Household reconstruction through labor migration in Baruwa VDC, Sindhupalchowk 59
xvii
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Photo: Alok Pokharel
1.1 Background
This report assesses conditions on the ground in
earthquake-affected areas of Nepal in April 2017.
Combining quantitative and qualitative information,
it explores the extent to which recovery is taking place
two years on from the earthquakes.
The Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring
for Accountability in Post-Earthquake Nepal (IRM)
project tracks evolving conditions and needs in areas
of Nepal that were affected by the massive earthquakes
of April and May 2015. Using both quantitative survey-
ing and in-depth qualitative fieldwork, IRM involves
revisiting areas and people at roughly six month
intervals to assess current conditions and how they
are changing. Because data collection and research is
conducted in the same areas in each round, with many
of the same people interviewed, IRM allows for an
assessment of how conditions and needs are changing
over time and of the roles that aid is playing—positive
and negative—in shaping recovery patterns.
The pace of recovery, and the experiences of different
population groups, will be determined by the level of
earthquake impacts, the aid response, the coping strat-
egies employed by affected households and communi-
ties, and the political and economic context in which
the recovery is taking place. IRM focuses on each of
these issues at the local level to assess the extent to
which recovery is taking place, how this varies between
groups and areas, and the causes of differences in the
degree and nature of recovery (Figure 1.1).
This report provides findings from the fourth phase of
research (referred to as IRM-4). It combines findings
from the quantitative and qualitative research.1 1 The
report provides data and analysis on the situation in
April 2017, two years after the initial earthquakes,
comparing the data with that collected in the three
past rounds: IRM-1 conducted in June 2015, IRM-2 in
February-March 2016 and IRM-3 in September 2016.2
1 Reports, published in parallel, outline in greater depth findings
and analysis from the qualitative and survey research. The Asia
Foundation and Democracy Resource Center Nepal (2017). Aid
and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts
and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4 - Qualitative Field Monitoring
(April 2017). Kathmandu and Bangkok: The Asia Foundation; The
Asia Foundation and Interdisciplinary Analysts (2017). Aid and
Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and
Recovery Monitoring Phase 4 - Quantitative Survey (April 2017).
Kathmandu and Bangkok: The Asia Foundation.
2 Reports from previous rounds can be accessed at: http://asiafoundation.org/tag/independent-impacts-and-recovery-moni
toring-nepal/.
1
Introduction
The IRM-4 survey involved face-to-face interviews
with 4,854 respondents. These were conducted in
11 districts, all of which were covered in the IRM-1,
IRM-2 and IRM-3 surveys (Map 1.1).3 IRM is set up as
a panel survey meaning that, where possible, the same
people are interviewed in each round. Respondents in
IRM-1 were selected using stratified randomized sam-
pling. Subsequent rounds of surveying sought to re-in-
terview the same people to allow for an assessment of
changes over time. Because the survey respondents
are the same people, we can be confident that any
changes we find in survey answers relate to changes on
the ground rather than to the make-up of the sample.4
The IRM-4 survey was deliberately designed to mirror
the IRM-1, IRM-2 and IRM-3 instruments, with many
of the questions remaining the same. This allows for
direct assessment to be made of changes over time.
Data collection took place in districts that were strat-
ified using the categories of earthquake impact from
the Government’s Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
(PDNA): Nuwakot, Sindhupalchowk, Ramechhap,
Gorkha, and Dhading (severely hit); Bhaktapur,
Okhaldhunga, and Kathmandu (crisis hit); Solukhum-
bu and Lamjung (hit with heavy losses); and Syangja
(hit). Severely hit districts are the most affected
districts, followed by crisis hit districts, then hit with
heavy losses districts, and then the hit district.
The qualitative research involved teams conducting
interviews, focus group discussions, and participant
observation in four districts spread across different
earthquake impact categories: Sindhupalchowk and
Gorkha (severely hit); Okhaldhunga (crisis hit),
and Solukhumbu (hit with heavy losses). Research
teams visited 24 wards in 12 Village Development
Committees (VDCs)/municipalities. Research took
three-four days per VDC and was supplemented by
interviews in district capitals. Sampling of locations
was initially done at three levels— district, VDC, and
ward—to maximize variation in two factors that were
predicted to affect the nature and speed of recovery:
the degree of impact of the earthquake; and the degree
1.2 Methodology
of remoteness. As with the quantitative survey, the
same wards were visited in each round of research.
The methodology for both components of the research
was developed to ensure to the greatest degree possible
that findings accurately reflect conditions and views
in earthquake-affected areas. A few relevant details
regarding the methodology and its limitations should
be noted.
Timing of research. IRM-4 fieldwork was conducted
in April 2017. During this period, the distribution of
the first installment of the reconstruction cash grant
was largely complete in the 14 most affected districts
including Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk and Okhaldhunga
(see Annex A) but not in the 17 less-affected districts,
including Solukhumbu. The NRA formulated several
policies during early to mid-2017 to address policy
gaps and the diversity of housing reconstruction needs.
However, the report does not evaluate the period after
April 2017 in terms of policy implementation or aid
provided.
Confidence in findings. The quantitative survey is
representative of all people in the eleven districts stud-
ied. A careful sampling strategy—at the VDC, ward,
household, and individual levels—was developed and
employed. Stratified random sampling, along with
weighting of the data, means that we can be sure with a
high degree of confidence that what we find holds true
for the wider population living in earthquake-affected
districts. The margin of error across the whole dataset
is +/-1.4% at a 95 percent confidence level. The sam-
ple size is at least 350 for each district allowing for a
margin of error of +/- 5.2% for district-disaggregated
analyses. Where we break down the survey popula-
tion by impact, demographic, or other variables (for
example, comparing the opinions of men and women
or patterns of recovery between people of different
castes) the level of accuracy of survey findings reduce.
It should be noted that the large sample size allows for
more accurate estimates, and that the margins of error
are smaller than in most surveys, in Nepal and beyond.
3 The IRM-1 survey was conducted in 14 districts. Three of these
districts (Manang, Khotang and Dang) were dropped for IRM-2,
IRM-3 and IRM-4 because they were subsequently not included
in the PDNA’s classification of earthquake-impacted districts.
4 The vast majority of people interviewed in the IRM-4 survey (4,131
out of the 4,854) had also been interviewed in IRM-2 and IRM-3.
A smaller number of these people (1,403) were also interviewed
in IRM-i. In some places in the report, we use the data that
includes only people interviewed in multiple rounds (referred
to as the household panel dataset). In other analyses, we use the
full datasets from IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3 and IRM-4. For a fuller
discussion of the survey methodology, and changes in approach
over time, see the IRM-4 survey report.
2
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Figure 1.1: Analytic framework
r i
Impacts of disaster
k J
r
Impacts of aid
k J
Economy & Social Relations
Livelihoods & Violence
r 1
Degree &
Nature of recovery
k J
Protection & Politics &
Vulnerability Leadership
Map 1.1: Locations of surveyed districts
3
Introduction
Photo: Alok Pokharel
Perceptions and accurate reporting. The
information provided throughout the report is based
on the reports of those interviewed. People may have
incentives to over- or under-report the level of impact
they experienced, and their perceptions or feelings
might not accurately reflect facts in some cases. The
data and findings should be read with this in mind. But
the use of both qualitative and quantitative research
has allowed for triangulation of findings, which
strengthens our confidence that they reflect reality.
1.3 Contextual changes since September 2016
A number of key contextual changes since IRM-3 was
conducted have shaped recovery.
The National Reconstruction Agency. At the
time IRM-3 was being conducted, the National Re-
construction Agency was busy implementing the Rural
Housing Reconstruction Program (RHRP), particu-
larly in the 11 most affected districts.5 The NRA is the
lead government agency for all post- earthquake re-
construction activities with a wide mandate relating to
coordination and facilitation of reconstruction, recov-
ery, and preparedness work.6 * * * * * Since IRM-3, the NRA
has faced ongoing difficulties in carrying out its work,
including a shortage of technical staff in the field.7 The
NRA has also made efforts to address policy gaps and
the diversity of housing reconstruction needs beyond
new housing construction (see Annex A). The main
changes made by the NRA included putting in place
grants for the purchase of land for the resettlement of
earthquake victims living in geologically unsafe areas
and grants for landless earthquake victims. While
significant challenges remain to implement the new
policies at the local level, the policies are a positive
step from the NRA.
5 References for this section can be found in the IRM-4 qualitative
report.
6 The NRA is mandated to work closely with a number of other
government ministries. The Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development, through its Central Level Programme Implemen-
tation Unit and District Level Programme Implementation Units,
holds primary responsibility for the disbursement of the housing
grant. Primary responsibility for technical standards and staffing
for housing reconstruction are the responsibility of the Ministry of
Urban Development (MoUD), through its CL-PIU and DL-PIUs,
as well as the Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC).
7 For more on the problems, see the IRM-3 qualitative report.
4
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Rural Housing Reconstruction Program
(RHRP). Since IRM-3, the government and donors
have largely focused on housing reconstruction mainly
through the Rural Housing Reconstruction Program.
The RHRP is supported by a multi-donor fund, em-
phasizes owner-driven reconstruction, and cash grants
of NPR 300,000 are provided in three installments
to eligible beneficiaries to aid them in building earth-
quake-resistant houses. Implementing the RHRP
required a third round of damage assessments aimed
at identifying reconstruction grant beneficiaries,
which began in February 2016. It also involved signing
agreements with beneficiaries to receive cash grants
for reconstruction (which began in March 2016),
followed by disbursement of the first installment of
the reconstruction cash grant in the 14 most affected
districts (which also began in March 2016).
By April 2017, when IRM-4 was conducted, the sign-
ing of beneficiary agreements and the distribution
of the first installment of the reconstruction cash
grant was largely complete in the 14 most affected
districts including Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk and
Okhaldhunga. Inspections for and distribution of the
second installment started in January 2017 in the 14
most affected districts. Inspections for and distribu-
tion of the third installment in the 14 most affected
districts began in March 2017. At the time of IRM-4
in April 2017, the CBS damage assessment survey of
the 17 less-affected districts was nearing completion
(including in Solukhumbu). However, the signing of
beneficiary agreements and the distribution of the
first installment of the reconstruction cash grant had
just started in April 2017 in these districts. Since then,
there has been more progress with the RHRP program
(see Annex A). However, because these developments
came after fieldwork was conducted, they are not cov-
ered in this report.
Photo: Alok Pokharel
5
Introduction
1.4 Report structure
This report covers a number of areas:
• Progress in recovery. Chapter 2 considers
changes to and conditions in shelters, progress
in reconstructing homes, progress in repairing
infrastructure and the status of service delivery,
the recovery of livelihoods, food provision and
needs and trauma and vulnerability.
• Aid and the housing grants. Chapter 3 details the
nature of aid provided and how this has changed
over time, critical needs, experiences and levels
of satisfaction with assistance received and with
those providing it and the coordination and
transparency of aid distribution.
Analysis of the differing impacts on different popu-
lation groups, differing patterns of recovery, and the
extent to which groups are vulnerable, is provided
throughout.
• Coping strategies. Chapter 4 looks at how house-
holds have tried to cope with earthquake impacts
through financial behavior, migration and other
means.
• Politics, social cohesion and conflict. Chapter 5
reviews the extent to which the earthquake and aid
response have affected political party activities,
roles, and levels of influence, changes in people’s
political preferences, and the impacts on security,
sources of conflict, and social cohesion.
The report concludes with a summary of findings,
a discussion of implications for aid and recovery
efforts moving forward and recommendations. These
conclusions and recommendations are not necessarily
those of the donors to IRM.
6
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Photo: Alok Pokharel
2.1 Housing and shelter
Where people are living
Over two years, there has been slow progress
of people moving from temporary shelters
to homes. Large proportions of people in
severely impact districts and of those whose
house was completely damaged still live in
temporary shelters.
Almost three-quarters of people in earthquake-
affected areas now live in their own homes compared
to 60% in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes
(Figure 2.1). Twenty-four percent now live in self-
constructed shelters compared to 33% in IRM-1.
Figure 2.1: Where people were/are living (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
7
Recovery
Despite some progress, a much larger share of the
population in severely hit districts is still living in tem-
porary shelters. Sixty-two percent of people in these
districts are still in shelters, down from 71 percent in
IRM-3. Sindhupalchowk still has the highest propor-
tion of people living in temporary shelters either on
their own land (76%) or on other people’s land (8%).8
Much fewer people in lesser affected districts remain
in shelters: 5% in crisis hit districts and 2% in hit with
heavy losses and hit districts.
According to self-reported levels of housing damage,
44% of people whose house was completely destroyed
are still living in shelters, compared to 5% whose house
was badly damaged. Almost no-one whose house
suffered minor or no damage was living in a shelter
in April 2017.
The marginalized and those ivho live in more
remote areas are much more likely to remain
in shelters and have found it much harder to
move home.
Low caste people who were in shelters in IRM-2 are
more likely than others, especially those of high caste,
to continue to live in shelters (Table 2.1). Income is an-
other important factor. Individuals in the low income
group are 11 percentage points more likely than the high
income group and 7 points more likely that the medium
income group to continue to live in shelters. Education
levels and gender are not good predictors of who remains
in shelters. However, widows are 4 percentage points
more likely than others, and people with disabilities are
5 percentage points more likely than those without any
disabilities, to continue living in shelter in IRM-4.
Table 2.1: Share of people living in shelters in IRM-2 who continue to live in shelters
in IRM-4 - by caste, pre-earthquake income, education, gender, widows and disability
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, household panel, unweighted)
Live elsewhere (IRM-4) Continue to live in shelter (IRM-4)
High caste 40% 60%
Caste Janajati 33% 67%
Low caste 30% 70%
Low 31% 69%
Pre-earthquake Medium 38% 62%
income High 42% 58%
Don’t know/refused 52% 48%
Illiterate 32% 68%
Literate but no education 35% 65%
Primary level 29% 71%
Lower secondary level 39% 61%
Education Secondary Level 54% 46%
SLC pass 44% 56%
+2/lntermediate pass 36% 64%
Bachelor pass 50% 50%
Master and Above 25% 75%
Female 35% 65%
Gender Male 35% 65%
Widows 31% 69%
111 0 0 r"\ 11i+\ 1 No disability 35% 65%
uisaDiiiiy Disability 30% 70%
Forty-five percent of people in more remote areas are
still in shelters compared to 37% in remote areas and
just 6% in less remote areas.9
8 In some of the tables and figures in this report, numbers do not
add up to 100% because of rounding errors.
9 Remoteness is categorized according to the time it take for
individuals to reach the district headquarters from their homes:
< 1 hour = less remote; 1-6 hours = remote; >6 hours = more remote.
The number of displaced households has
continued to decrease, with people moving
back to their previous land or buying new
land.
Data from the qualitative research provide some
examples of this trend. In ward 2 of Barpak VDC,
Gorkha, there were 40 displaced households in IRM-3,
but this had reduced to around 25 displaced households
by IRM-4. In Prapcha VDC, Okhaldhunga, the number
8
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
had decreased from 48 to 20-25 households, and
in Sindhupalchowk it had decreased in Syaule VDC
from 22 households to none, and from seven to two
households in Lisankhu VDC. Some households
were buying new land within their VDC, generally
in the places that they had been temporarily staying
in, as was the case in Prapcha (see Case Study 2.1).
Other households were returning to their previous
settlements as a number of factors pushed them to
leave their temporary settlements, despite the safety
of their previous settlements not being assured (in
Prapcha VDC, Okhaldhunga and in Syaule VDC,
Sindhupalchowk).
Displaced households continued to face un-
certainty and remained vulnerable.
They often took risks when moving back to unsafe land
or buying new land by taking large loans. In several
cases this was because they had received little to no
help from the government and moved back having given
up hope of receiving assistance. In some cases, social
tensions with their neighbors in temporary settlements
proved too great. As a result, although the number of
displaced had reduced, the formerly displaced remained
highly vulnerable, either back on unsafe land, unwel-
come in temporary settlements or indebted.
Case Study 2.1: The precariousness of displaced Dalit families
in Prapcha VDC, Okhaldhunga
In IRM-3 more than 15 Dalit households dis-
placed by the earthquake from Prapcha-8, Ke-
ureni Hill, were living within one kilometer of
their original settlement in Dahalgaun and rent-
ing land belonging to upper castes. As of IRM-4,
these displaced Dalit families had received the
first housing cash grant installment of NPR
50,000 but, as the ward had been declared un-
safe by the geological assessment team, they did
not have land onto which to build their houses.
The resettlement issues facing these displaced
families had not been addressed by the govern-
ment or district authorities by April 2017.
As a result of the government inaction, the
displaced households took matters into their
own hands and took out loans or borrowed
money in order to buy land. About eight families
purchased the land that they had been renting
in Dahalgaun and started building houses.
They did so by borrowing money from family
members or local moneylenders. For example,
Indra, a 28-year-old Dalit man from that settle-
ment, borrowed a total of NPR 350,000 from
his sister, other relatives and local upper caste
moneylenders at 2 percent interest. Govinda,
43 years old, said that his loan to build a house
had doubled from NPR 200,000 to more than
NPR 400,000 over the previous six months
(from late 2016 to early 2017).
Another five Dalit families moved back to their
original settlement and started building hous-
es, against advice from the district authorities.
Thirty-year-old Menuka said that her family
was not in a position to purchase land in Dahal-
gaun but continued living on a small patch of
land rented for NPR 3,000 a year. Menuka had
already started building a house on her original
settlement, even though the VDC technical as-
sistant and engineer had advised her against it.
Facing a dilemma, she said, “if we don’t build
a house we don’t have a place to stay, but if we
build here, we are told that we won’t get the
next installments.â€
Those displaced families who had started re-
building their houses had not received techni-
cal support from NRA engineers. An assistant
sub-engineer who was deployed by the Red
Cross to provide technical assistance in the VDC
said “we initially discouraged them from build-
ing houses, but when they were determined to
build, we suggested they at least follow NRA
guidelines so that they would have a chance
of getting the second and third installments of
the reconstruction cash grant.†However, an
NRA engineer based in Prapcha explained that
they could not provide families with technical
support as the government had not identified
the area as safe. This will most likely mean that
those families will not rebuild according to the
national building code and design catalogue
suggestions. As a result, the families will not
receive the second and third installment of the
cash grant (unless, after they fail, they complete
correction orders issued by NRA engineers) and
will have to borrow extra money to complete
their houses. In addition, they will continue to
live on unsafe land.
Note: This is a follow-up to case studies from
previous research rounds. See, Case Studies 5.1
and 7.3 in the IRM-3 qualitative report.
9
Recovery
Most temporary shelters are made of CGI only
or CGI with wood and bamboo. Those in less
remote areas are more likely to have better
shelters than those living further.
Almost all of those living in shelters live in either
corrugated galvanized iron (CGI) shelters or shelters
made from a combination of CGI and wood or bamboo
(Figure 2.2). There has been a decline in the number
of people in shelters that use tarpaulins or that are
primarily built from bamboo.
Figure 2.2: Share of people living in different types of shelters (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
wood/bamboo
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
In IRM-4, those in shelters in less remote areas were
more likely to be in shelters made out of CGI sheets,
but shelters found in remote and more remote areas
are more likely to be either non-CGI shelters or those
that combine CGI sheets with wood or bamboo. The
share of people using CGI sheets only in less remote
areas (62%) is almost twice that of those in shelters
in more remote areas (34%) and 21 percentage points
higher than in remote areas (41%).
In the areas covered by the field research,
none of the community shelters were in use,
as they were deemed unfit for living.
In the VDCs visited, community shelters were either
no longer in use or had never been inhabited. Com-
munity shelters were deemed impractical as they were
often too small to house a whole family and also too
small to leave enough room to store grain, grass and
accommodate cattle. People therefore preferred to stay
in individual shelters closer to their damaged homes.
Households who were displaced also preferred to stay
in self-constructed shelters on public rented land and
some were resettled inside government buildings.
Most people were able to make their shelters
ready for adverse weather. Those who could
not were more likely to be marginalized
groups.
When asked if respondents were able to prepare their
shelters for winter weather, the majority (70%) in
IRM-4 said that they were able to fix them sufficient-
ly or completely. However, 17% failed to repair their
shelters completely and 11% failed to repair them
sufficiently. When comparing with people’s prepar-
edness in the past, as shown in Figure 3.3, a relatively
higher share of people were able to completely repair
their shelters in IRM-4 (14%) compared to IRM-3
(6%) or IRM-2 (3%). The share of people who failed
to repair sufficiently or completely has not changed
since IRM-3.
Individuals in the low caste group were less likely to
repair sufficiently or completely compared to Janajatis
or those in the high caste group. Low caste people
were more likely to report inadequate or no repair
(37%) compared to Janajatis (27%) or those of high
caste (29%). Slightly more people in the medium
and high income groups said that they were able to
sufficiently or completely repair their shelters for
winter with a relatively larger share of people in the
low income group saying that they had made either
inadequate or no repairs (30%) compared to medium
income individuals (25%) and high income people
(23%). People with disabilities have also faced greater
difficulty repairing their shelters. Seventy-one percent
of people without any disability said that they had been
able to sufficiently or completely repair the shelters
compared to only 54% of people with disabilities.
10
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Figure 2.3: Share of people preparing their shelters for winter (IRM-2, IRM-4)/
monsoon (IRM-3) (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
sufficient for winter sufficient for winter
I Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) â– Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
| Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
*7 % in IRM-2 and IRM-4 mentioned that their shelter did not need any repair
As in previous rounds, people in makeshift
shelters continue to face hardships. Those
with a low income and those who were unable
to fix their shelters were more likely to have
someone in their household fall ill.
Those staying in shelters reported feeling uncom-
fortable due to the lack of space and poor protection
from weather, insects and animals, as well as safety
concerns about the structures. More people fell sick
in the winter than in the monsoon that preceded it.
Nineteen percent said they had a sickness in their
family in the winter compared to 17% in the monsoon.
Recurrent cold and fever were the most common
illnesses (both at 33%). For the winter, those belong-
ing to lower castes (28%) were much more likely than
Janajatis (19%) or higher caste groups (18%) to report
an illness. Those with lower incomes were more likely
to have experienced an illness in the family. Those in
temporary shelters were also more likely than others to
say they had had a sickness in the family (Figure 2.4).
Photo: Alok Pokharel
11
Recovery
Figure 2.4: Share of people who say someone in their family got sick due to shelter issues -
by where people were living (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
â– Sep 16 (IRM-3) â– Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Among those living in temporary shelters, those in
cowsheds were the most likely to say someone fell
ill during the winter season with 47% of people in
cowsheds reporting a sickness in the family.
Reconstruction of houses
Table 2.2: Proportion whose house was destroyed
or suffered major damage who have done nothing
to rebuild their damaged house - by district impact
and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Proportion who have not started rebuilding
Severely hit 62%
Dhading 69%
Gorkha 49%
Nuwakot 58%
Ramechhap 61%
Sindhupalchowk 70%
Crisis hit 55%
Bhaktapur 53%
Kathmandu 55%
Okhaldhunga 60%
Hit with heavy losses 42%
Solukhumbu 34%
Lamjung 52%
Hit 35%
Syangja 35%
All 56%
Less remote 52%
Remote 59%
More remote 48%
Over half of people ivhose house sustained
complete or major damage have not yet
started rebuilding.
The majority of people whose house was impacted by
the earthquakes have not started rebuilding.10 Fifty-
six percent of those whose house suffered complete
destruction or major damage reported that they had
not done anything to rebuild. Those in more affected
districts are less likely to have started rebuilding
(Table 2.2). People in Sindhupalchowk, Ramechhap
and Okhaldhunga are the least likely to have started
rebuilding, while a larger share of people whose house
was destroyed or suffered major damage have started
rebuilding in Solukhumbu and Syangja.
People of low caste or low income and widows
are less likely to have started rebuilding.
Those of low caste are 9 percentage points more likely
than high caste people, and 4 points more likely than
Janajatis, to have not started rebuilding. Low income
individuals are 1 percentage point more likely than
10 For information on the role and limitations of the Rural Housing
Reconstruction Program grant in supporting rebuilding, see
Chapter 3.
12
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
those with a medium income and 4 points more likely
than those with a high income to have not started
rebuilding. Differences by gender and disability are
negligible, but widows are 4 percentage points less
likely than others to have started rebuilding their
damaged or destroyed house (Figure 2.5). Fifty percent
of those who said their income has declined since the
earthquake said they have not started rebuilding, 14
percentage points more than those whose income has
improved and 9 points more than those whose income
has not changed.
Figure 2.5: Proportion who have not done anything to rebuild their damaged house - by caste,
pre-earthquake income, education, gender, widows and disability (IRM-4, weighted)
Lack of money and ivaitingfor the government
cash grant remain the most common reasons
for not rebuilding.
When asked why they had not starting rebuilding,
people overwhelmingly mentioned not having
enough money (93%) - Figure 2.6.11 Compared to the
IRM-3 survey, conducted six months earlier, this is
an increase of 4 percentage points.12 The next most
common reason according to respondents in IRM-4
was that they were waiting for government cash grants
(49%).13 The share of people citing this reason has
declined from 66% in IRM-3.
People in high impact districts, who live in more
remote areas, people of low caste and widows were
more likely to say that they were still waiting for the
government cash grant.
Costs for reconstruction continue to increase.
All VDCs visited by IRM field research team had seen
increases in the prices of at least some of the main
materials needed for construction such as sand,
stones, bricks, wood, cement, iron rods and CGI. As
reported in IRM-3, there is a widespread perception
that following the government’s guidelines on housing
types requires construction materials from outside
VDCs, leading to high transportation costs. Even
for materials that are available locally, costs have
increased due to rising demand. This includes the
cost of labor to break and carry stones and the costs
of hiring vehicles or porters to transport materials to
construction sites, especially in areas far from mo-
torable roads. Daily wages for skilled and unskilled
labor have steadily increased since the beginning of
reconstruction. In one field site in Solukhumbu, for ex-
ample, wages for skilled and semi-skilled masons, and
for unskilled laborers, had increased by 100% since
the earthquakes and by 40% since late 2016. There
has also been a shortage of trained construction labor,
meaning that even those able to pay higher wages
have struggled to find laborers and often had to delay
rebuilding. Shortages of wood and water continue to
be reconstruction challenges.
11 Respondents could give multiple reasons why they have not
started rebuilding, hence percentages do not add up to 100%.
12 IRM-3 quantitative report, p. 24.
13 See Chapter 3.
13
Recovery
Figure 2.6: Reasons for stopping repairing or not building a house (IRM-4, weighted)
Faster rebuilding rates were observed in
wards with greater outside assistance and
internal community support systems.
Wards with good road access and higher wealth were
generally faster to rebuild. Another factor was the
presence of outside donors who rebuilt houses for
people or who were significantly invested in helping
people rebuild, both financially and by providing ma-
terials and assistance for construction. In Nele VDC in
Solukhumbu, an individual donor provided assistance
for the rebuilding of nearly all damaged houses in the
VDC; in one ward of Baruwa VDC in Sindhupalcho-
wk, an Italian individual had helped rebuild several
houses. In these locations, noticeably more houses had
been completed compared to other wards.14
Intra-community support during reconstruction
through traditional labor sharing practices, called
parma, also contribute to faster rebuilding. In some
wards of Syaule VDC, Sindhupalchowk, the local
Tamang community resorted to labor sharing during
reconstruction because of high labor costs and labor
shortages. This allowed them to proceed steadily with
reconstruction. However, such labor sharing practices
are not widely available across earthquake-affected
districts.
2.2 Infrastructure and service delivery
Overall there has been no significant change
in access of public services in the past three
rounds of research, except water accessibility
which saw a decrease in IRM-4.
Access to public services has improved since the imme-
diate aftermath of the disaster. In particular, access to
drinking water improved markedly between June 2015
and March 2016. However, since then, there have not
been significant changes in the proportion of people
reporting they have access to most services. The one
exception is access to drinking water. Nine percentage
points fewer people say they have access to drinking
water in April 2017 compared to September 2016.
14 It is unclear whether or not these houses are compliant with the
national building code. The NRA has attempted to discourage
this approach to rebuilding, preferring that individual donors
and NGOs support technical assistance in the Rural Housing
Reconstruction Program. Evidence from other disasters suggests
that the owner-driven reconstruction model is more likely to result
in a higher number of safer houses for a larger percentage of the
population as compared to NGOs or individuals building homes
on behalf of people.
14
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Access to clean drinking water has declined in severely
hit and crisis hit districts. As shown in Table 2.3, while
only 46% of people in severely hit districts reported
having access to clean drinking water immediately
after the earthquake (IRM-1), the figure increased to
75% in IRM-2 and 85% in IRM-3. However, only 76%
of the severely hit population said they had access to
clean drinking water in IRM-4. The result is driven
mainly by two districts, Gorkha and Nuwakot, where
reported water accessibility in IRM-4 has lowered by
19 percentage points and 29 points, respectively, since
IRM-3. In crisis hit districts, there has been a decline
of 12 points from IRM-3 to IRM-4. Among crisis hit
districts, the share of people with access to clean water
declined by 7 percentage points in Bhaktapur and by
13 points in Kathmandu.
Table 2.3: Access to clean drinking water - by district impact and district
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Severely hit 46% 75% 85% 76%
Dhading 36% 71% 77% 82%
Gorkha 32% 91% 87% 68%
Nuwakot 74% 71% 95% 66%
Ramechhap 59% 76% 80% 86%
Sindhupalchowk 36% 68% 85% 81%
Crisis hit 83% 94% 92% 80%
Bhaktapur 73% 92% 89% 82%
Kathmandu 86% 95% 93% 80%
Okhaldhunga 66% 86% 76% 81%
Hit with heavy losses 82% 95% 99% 100%
Solukhumbu 94% 91% 100% 100%
Lamjung 75% 97% 99% 100%
Hit 51% 90% 97% 97%
Syangja 51% 90% 97% 97%
All districts 69% 88% 90% 81%
Satisfaction rates with public services have
declined in IRM-4 with the exception of elec-
tricity.
Satisfaction with electricity saw a big increase from
63% in IRM-3 to 91% in this round while satisfaction
with other services have gone down (Table 2.4).
Highest levels of dissatisfaction are with drinking
water (23%) and roads (15%). Levels of dissatisfaction
with water is high in both IRM-2 and IRM-4, both of
which cover the dry season.
Table 2.4: Satisfaction with public services (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Satisfied 89% 60% 63% 91%
Electricity Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 5% 5% 18% 5%
Dissatisfied 6% 35% 19% 4%
Satisfied 85% 61% 67% 62%
Drinking water Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 7% 6% 17% 15%
Dissatisfied 8% 33% 16% 23%
Satisfied 93% 81% 80% 67%
Medical facilities Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4% 5% 13% 24%
Dissatisfied 3% 14% 7% 9%
15
Recovery
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Satisfied 93% 85% 90% 77%
Schools Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3% 4% 7% 20%
Dissatisfied 4% 11% 3% 3%
Satisfied 90% 80% 80% 64%
Motorable Neither satisfied 4% 5% 10% 21%
roads nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 6% 15% 10% 15%
A lack of resources and poor coordination
has hampered infrastructure reconstruction.
Local government officers and VDC Secretaries as well
as residents consistently raised this issue. Most infra-
structure repairs that had been completed involved
assistance from I/NGOs, donors, UN agencies or indi-
vidual support, but large gaps in budgets had yet to be
filled. As with housing reconstruction, infrastructure
reconstruction was also affected by a lack of clarity on
the decision-making powers of district offices and their
relationship to the NRA. With the large number of line
agencies involved in the reconstruction of infrastruc-
ture, the lack of clarity is likely to cause further delays
if it remains unaddressed. Additionally, the same
challenges of road access, high costs for materials,
transportation and labor, and shortages of laborers
were delaying infrastructure reconstruction. In some
instances, infrastructure reconstruction projects were
delayed because no new safe land could be identified
to rebuild on.
2.3 Livelihoods
Most people continue to see improvements in
their income sources but the proportion seeing
improvements in the past three months has
declinedfor most sources compared to IRM-3.
For most income sources the proportion saying they
had seen recent improvements is lower than was the
case for IRM-3 (Figure 2.7). Seventy-two percent of
people who farm their own land whose income was
affected by the earthquakes say they have seen recent
improvements compared to 85% in IRM-3. Daily
wage work, business income and remittances are the
exceptions: for each, a much larger share of people
say this income source has improved in the last three
months compared to IRM-3.
People in more affected districts are more
likely to have seen their income decline since
the earthquakes.
On average, individuals in severely hit or crisis hit dis-
tricts are nearly 15 percentage points more likely than
those in lesser affected districts to report that their in-
come has declined since the earthquakes (Table 2.5).15
Declining income has been particularly widespread in
15 This is based on unweighted estimates from the panel dataset.
Sindhupalchowk and Gorkha districts. In each, over
half of the population report that their current income
is lower than their income before the earthquakes and
the rate is also high in Okhaldhunga (46%).
People who live in more remote areas, who
sustained more housing damage or ivho still
live in temporary shelter are more likely
to have lower incomes now than before the
earthquakes.
A much larger share of people in more remote areas
(44 percent) say that their income has declined since
the earthquakes; 15 percentage points more than
people in less remote areas. On the other hand, 30
percentage of people in less remote areas say their
income has improved compared to 16 percent of those
in more remote areas.
People who sustained greater damage to their houses
are more likely to struggle with income recovery. Thir-
ty-seven percent of those whose house was completely
destroyed say their income has decreased since the
earthquakes. This is 3, 11 and 14 percentage points
more than people who suffered major, minor and no
house damage to their house. People whose house saw
minor or no damage are more likely to have seen their
income increase than decrease.
16
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Twenty-nine percent of people living in their own
house report improvements in income after the earth-
quakes. This is 5 percentage points more than people
living in shelters on their own land and 10 percentage
points more than those living in shelters on other peo-
ple’s land. Those who are renting are also more likely
to have experienced a decline in income than people
living in their own homes.
Figure 2.7: Share of people within each income source whose income from that source
has improved (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2)
Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
| Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Table 2.5: Current income (IRM-4) compared to pre-earthquake income (IRM-2) -
by district impact and district (IRM-4, IRM-2 household panel, unweighted)
No change Income decreased Income increased Don’t know
Severely hit 32% 38% 27% 3%
Dhading 38% 25% 37% 1%
Gorkha 27% 51% 20% 2%
Nuwakot 34% 42% 20% 4%
Ramechhap 37% 20% 39% 5%
Sindhupalchowk 28% 52% 18% 2%
Crisis hit 36% 35% 25% 5%
Bhaktapur 35% 22% 32% 11%
Kathmandu 32% 23% 38% 7%
Okhaldhunga 37% 46% 16% 0%
Hit with heavy losses 33% 22% 28% 17%
Lamjung 43% 20% 36% 1%
Solukhumbu 17% 25% 14% 44%
Hit 24% 21% 28% 26%
Syangja 24% 21% 28% 26%
All districts 38% 34% 27% 1%
17
Recovery
People’s pre-earthquake income is a powerful
determinant of income recovery while caste
plays small role.
While 58% of those who had a low income before the
earthquakes report that their income has declined
since then, 69% of those who had a high income before
the earthquakes say that their income has improved in
the past two years. Recovery among Janajatis is lower
with them being slightly more likely to report that their
income has declined since the earthquakes compared
to high caste and low caste people. A higher share
of high caste people say their income has improved
(28%), compared to Janajatis (26%) and low caste
people (24%).
There is little difference in changes in income between
men and women.16 However, widows (36%) and those
with a disability (37%) are slightly more likely to report
that their income has declined.
There has been a decline in the number of
people who generate income throughfarming
and an increase in the number generating
income through their own business, daily
wage work or remittances.
When respondents were asked whether they had
changed their livelihood in the previous three months,
only 1% in IRM-2 said they had done so while 2% in
IRM-3 and IRM-4 said they had. However, while
these numbers are low, the data also reveal that
some income sources are becoming more important.
In IRM-1, conducted shortly after the earthquakes,
68% said farming their own land was a major income
source.17 By IRM-2, conducted in February 2016,
this had declined to 51%. Since then, the proportion
reporting farming their own land as a main income
source has stayed fairly steady and is at 53% in IRM-
4 (Figure 2.8). There has been a similar decrease in
the number of people farming others’ land (from 6%
in IRM-1 to 3% in IRM-4). While livestock farming
dropped sharply as an income source in the first year
after the earthquakes, it has since almost recovered
with 18% reporting it as a major income source in
the latest survey. In contrast, far more people are
generating income through their own business or
daily wage work than in the past and remittances
have become more important. Whereas 23% of people
cited business revenue as a major income source in
June 2015, this had increased to 36% by April 2017.
Eight percent of people said daily wage work was an
important income source in June 2015; this increased
to 17% in the latest survey. Those citing remittances
as a major income source increased from 10% in June
2015 to 15% in April 2017.
The decline offarming as a main income source
may be explained by continuing impacts on
the sector and on income opportunities from
construction-related daily wage work.
Farming in most areas has largely recovered from
the earthquakes. However, some areas still face
challenges such as geological damages due to the
earthquakes, fears of landslides, crop depredation and
water shortages. In areas studied in the qualitative
field research, such as Sindhupalchowk’s Baruwa
VDC, households only engaged in farming one-third
to one-half of their fields. The land closest to the
village continues to be cultivated while land further
away is left barren. Gyan Bahadur Syangbo explains:
“Only half the cropping is done - the field has been
damaged18 by the earthquake. I don’t think we can
repair the field immediately, because for that we need
money and if it gets damaged again, we will have loan
after loan.†Bhupal Syangbo from the same ward fears
landslides as he feels the land has become fragile after
the earthquake and prone to instability after heavy
rains. Furthermore, Sarita Tamang explains that when
land further away is left barren then neighboring plots
are also left barren, which risks crop depredation by
monkeys and other animals. Irrigation was also often
inadequate, listed as a need in all nine VDCs where
field research was conducted in three districts. The
lack of adequate water supply for agriculture was a
pre-existing issue but it was exacerbated by damage
to infrastructure during the earthquake and the poor
monsoon rainfall in 2015.
Income generated from farming is inadequate for re-
building and in several cases not sufficient to sustain
household’s expenses. Respondents in Nele VDC,
Solukhumbu, stated that harvests were only sufficient
for three to four months and that the rest of their food
had to be purchased from income from tourism, re-
mittances or from daily wage labor. Increased oppor-
tunities in reconstruction, with a relative rise in daily
wages, have reduced interest in farming. Many indi-
viduals are temporarily shifting to daily wage work.
16 Thirty-four percent of both men and women say their income 18 Damage here refers to the collapse of retaining walls on the
has declined. Twenty-seven percent of men say their income has terraced slopes after the earthquake.
increased compared to 26% of women.
17 Respondents in IRM-4 could choose more than one option from
16 different income sources.
18
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Construction businesses have capitalized as
rebuilding continues. Hotel businesses are
doing well in high impact areas with many
aid organizations present and also in tourist
areas as tourism has fully resumed.
Markets were generally fully functional in early
2016 after the blockade ended. With the boom in
reconstruction, businesses related to construction
have increased in number across the areas studied.
Businesses are catering to the influx of wage laborers
and masons. The many wage laborers, both local and
from the Terai and India, have to be fed; as a result,
restaurants and food shops are doing well, particularly
in Sindhupalchowk. In areas heavily impacted by the
earthquakes, the influx of aid organizations has gen-
erated more income for businesses with an increased
demand for accommodation and catering services. In
Baruwa VDC in Sundhupalchowk, for example, aid
organizations holding meetings and programs order
meals from Himal Gurung who runs a small hotel
business. Recently, he has built an additional cottage
to rent rooms for guests who visit the VDC.
While tourism had been recovering in IRM-3, full
recovery was seen in IRM-4 in April 2017. For example,
in Phaplu, the tourist hub in Solukhumbu’s district
headquarters, the flow of tourists and hotel bookings
was reported to be as high as the best years before the
earthquake. Similarly, a respondent from Kerung VDC
said, “I have been involved in trekking for 30 years.
Due to the impact of the earthquake on trekking, I had
to stay jobless for long after the earthquake and faced
financial difficulties. Many people from this ward are
involved in trekking and all of them faced the same
difficulties for the past two tourist seasons. But now
tourism has fully recovered and my job has come back
to the pre-earthquake situation now.â€
Figure 2.8: Income sources for people in affected areas (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Farming one's own land
Farming another's land
Daily wages
Own business
Remittance
Private company
Government service
Pension
Rent
Livestock farming
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) | Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
19
Recovery
2.4 Food
Food needs are decreasing.
Far fewer people say that the provision of food is a
priority need for them than in previous IRM surveys.19
Only 7% in IRM-4 say that food is one of their most
important immediate needs, down from 27% in IRM-1,
and 7% that it is an important need for next three
months, down from 24% in IRM-1. The drop in food
demand has been steady since IRM-1 (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9: Food as a top immediate need and three month need (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Immediate food need Next 3 months food need
However, food continues to remain an acute
need in some areas and for certain groups of
people: those in severely impacted districts,
more remote areas and ofloiv caste and low
pre-earthquake income.
Those in severely hit districts are much more likely
than others to say they need food. Stated need for
food is particularly high in Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk
and Nuwakot (Table 2.6). The demand for food in
districts that are more urban, such as Kathmandu and
Bhaktapur, is much lower compared to other districts.
Food demand is also much higher in more remote ar-
eas than in remote or less remote areas. Twenty-seven
percent in more remote areas say food is an immediate
need and 22 percent say they need food in the next
three months. Only 12 and 14 percent in remote areas
and 4 and 3 percent in less remote areas say so.
Stated need for food is also substantially greater for
those of low caste or who had a low pre-earthquake
income. Immediate food need is almost three times
higher among low caste people (13%) and nearly seven
19 Food in the survey mainly refers to rice, wheat and maize, which
are the main staple foods in Nepal.
times higher among the low income group (14%)
compared to high castes (4%) and those with a high
pre-earthquake income (2%).
Table 2.6: Food as a top immediate need and
three month need - by district impact and district
(IRM-4, weighted)
Immediate food need 3 month food need
Severely hit 20% 24%
Dhading 4% 3%
Gorkha 38% 28%
Nuwakot 20% 45%
Ramechhap 9% 11%
Sindhupalchowk 26% 34%
Crisis hit 3% 1%
Bhaktapur 7% 3%
Kathmandu 1% 1%
Okhaldhunga 15% 7%
Hit with heavy losses 8% 8%
Lamjung 4% 5%
Solukhumbu 14% 14%
Hit 11% 6%
Syangja 11% 6%
All districts 7% 7%
20
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
There is not much variation in stated food need by
gender.20 However, widows are 5 percentage points
more likely to say they have immediate food needs
and 2 percentage points more likely to report food
need for the next three months. Similarly, people with
a disability are twice as likely as others to say they
have an immediate need for food and 1.5 times more
likely than others to mention food need for the next
three months.
Food consumption appears to be improving.
People in severely hit districts, of low caste
or low income and women are more likely to
report decreases in food consumption.
As with previous rounds of the survey, most people
say their year-on-year consumption has remained the
same, with around one-third saying it has increased
and 6% reporting a decrease. Thirty-four percent now
say their consumption has increased over the past year
compared to 31% in February 2016. There is, however,
substantial variation in changes to food consumption
across districts. Those in severely hit districts are
substantially more likely to report decreases in con-
sumption. The four districts where more than 10%
of people report decreases in food consumption are
Okhaldhunga (13%), Sindhupalchowk (12%), Nuwakot
(13%) and Dhading (12%).
A higher share of low caste and Janajati people report
decreasing food consumption (Table 2.7). However,
levels of pre-earthquake income are more important.
Those in the low income group are 3 percentage points
more likely than those in the medium income group
and 7 points more likely than those in the high income
group to report a decrease in food consumption in the
last eight months. There is also a noticeable difference
in reported decreases in food consumption when dis-
aggregating by gender, too. Women (9%) are twice
as likely to report a decrease in consumption as are
men (4%). The difference by education, widows and
disability is not clear or large.
Table 2.7: Changes in food consumption in the past eight months - by caste,
pre-earthquake income and gender (IRM4, weighted)
Increased a lot Increased slightly Same as before Decreased slightly Decreased a lot Don’t know/ refused
High caste 3% 26% 65% 4% 1% 0%
Caste Janajati 3% 27% 62% 7% 0% 1%
Low caste 4% 26% 62% 7% 1% 0%
Pre-earthquake income Low 3% 29% 56% 9% 1% 1%
Medium 4% 24% 65% 6% 1% 0%
High 2% 26% 69% 3% 0% 0%
Gender Female 3% 27% 61% 8% 1% 0%
Male 3% 26% 66% 4% 0% 0%
2.5 Trauma
The number of people reporting that a family
member is suffering psychological effectsfrom
the earthquakes has decreased in all areas.
In IRM-3, 23% of people said that someone in their
household was still suffering from psychological ef-
fects. This has decreased to 15%. There is no clear re-
lationship between the level of earthquake impact in a
district and reported levels of psychological problems.
20 This is not surprising given people are likely reporting on food
need for their households.
Those with a low income are facing more
difficulty in recovering from psychological
impacts.
Reports of psychological effects due to the earthquakes
decline with rising income. The gap between low
income people and others is now greater than was the
case in IRM-3, suggesting this group has had more
problems overcoming any psychological impacts -
Table 2.8. Women (16%) are slightly more likely than
men (13%) to report psychological effects. Similar
shares across caste groups say someone in their family
is still impacted psychologically by the earthquakes.
21
Recovery
Table 2.8: Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquakes - by pre-earthquake
income, age, disability, gender, widows and caste (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Yes Yes, but the person is getting better No
Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Pre-earthquake income Low income 25% 20% 6% 3% 69% 77%
Medium income 21% 11% 5% 4% 74% 85%
High income 21% 9% 4% 4% 75% 87%
18-29 22% 15% 5% 1% 72% 83%
Age 30-49 23% 13% 4% 3% 73% 83%
50 and above 23% 16% 6% 4% 71% 80%
Disability Disabled 22% 12% 5% 4% 72% 83%
Not disabled 23% 16% 5% 3% 71% 81%
Gender Female 25% 16% 5% 3% 69% 80%
Male 21% 13% 5% 3% 74% 83%
Widows Widows 26% 16% 7% 4% 67% 80%
High caste 21% 15% 6% 3% 73% 82%
Caste Janajati 23% 15% 5% 4% 72% 81%
Low caste 29% 14% 5% 3% 67% 83%
Psychological trauma is associated with
housing damage.
As was the case in IRM-3, people with a completely
destroyed home (17%) are more likely than those
whose house was badly damaged (13%), whose house
needs minor repairs but is habitable (10%) or whose
house was not damaged (6%) to report psychological
effects - Table 2.9.
Table 2.9: Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquakes -
by housing damage (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Yes Yes, but the person is getting better No
Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Completely destroyed 24% 17% 5% 3% 70% 79%
Badly damaged (needs major repair to live in) 19% 13% 6% 5% 75% 81%
Habitable (but needs minor repair) 23% 10% 4% 2% 73% 88%
Not damaged 19% 6% 5% 3% 76% 90%
22
Photo: Alok Pokharel
3.1 Aid coverage
Changes in aid coverage
Aid coverage increased between IRM-3 and
IRM-4 after a sharp drop in aid between
IRM-2 and IRM-3. This was largely due to
the distribution of the first installment of the
housing grant.
Two years on from the earthquakes, 40% of the people
in earthquake-affected areas said that they had re-
ceived aid since the last monsoon. In the early months
after the earthquakes almost everyone said they re-
ceived some type of aid (96% in IRM-1) - Figure 3.1.
One year after the quakes about one-half said they
received aid in the period between IRM-1 and IRM-2
(54% in IRM-2). By September 2016, there was a huge
drop in those receiving aid (15% in IRM-3). The more
recent jump in the number of people receiving aid was
largely due to the distribution of the first tranche of
the housing grant. Since last winter, aid coverage has
been concentrated in the severely hit (81% received
aid) and crisis hit (25%) districts.
Recent increases in aid coverage have not been seen
everywhere. Aid coverage declined in hit with heavy
losses and hit districts in the same period. Increases in
aid coverage between IRM-3 and IRM-4 were sharpest
in Nuwakot, Dhading and Bhaktapur.
People in Sindhupalchowk (89%), Ramechhap (80%)
and Nuwakot (84%) were the most likely to have
received aid since the winter season (Figure 3.2).
Though within the same earthquake impact category,
people in Kathmandu (18%) were much less likely
to get aid than in Bhaktapur (60%) or Okhaldhunga
(51%). Almost no-one received aid in Lamjung and
Solukhumbu and just 4% did in Syangja. Of the
districts surveyed, these were the only ones where the
first tranche of the government’s housing grant had
not been disbursed at the time of the survey.
More remote areas received more aid but
many remote villages also missed out.
Aid coverage was extremely widespread everywhere in
IRM-1, but from then on more remote areas started to
receive more aid compared to other areas according
to survey findings. Even in IRM-3, when aid coverage
was at its lowest, people in more remote areas were
twice as likely to have received aid compared to areas
that were less remote or remote.
However, those in particularly remote areas may be
missing out from aid.21 The qualitative research found
21 The more remote category in the survey research includes all
areas more than 6 hours from the district headquarters. Many
wards are significantly further than this and the survey research
may not have fully captured differences in aid volumes going to
these very remote areas.
23
Aid and the Housing Grants
that people in the remote wards that were visited had
received little direct aid and struggled more to access
their cash grant beneficiary accounts or technical
assistance. Extremely remote areas that could not
be visited during the research were reported to be
without any assistance in Solukhumbu district. Some
of Solukhumbu’s remote eastern and western VDCs,
which suffered damage comparable to some of the
worst affected areas of Gorkha or Sindhupalchowk,
had reportedly received almost no assistance because
of their remoteness and because the district was not a
priority district and received little aid overall compared
to more highly impacted districts. “It was stupid to
think that a natural disaster like an earthquake would
follow the district map when striking,†said a journalist
in Solukhumbu who was concerned that people highly
hit pockets of lesser impacted districts were forgotten.
Figure 3.1: Share of people receiving some type of aid - by district impact
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1)
Mar-Feb 2016 (IRM-2)
â– Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Figure 3.2: Share of people receiving some type of aid since the end of winter 2016 -
by district (IRM-4, weighted)
24
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Those belonging to higher castes and higher
income groups mere less likely to have
received aid.
In all four survey rounds, men and women have been
equally likely to report that their household received
some form of aid. Having a disability has also not
affected whether or not someone receives aid. In
IRM-4,41% of those with a disability and 39% without
one reported having received aid. People belonging to
higher castes continue to be less likely to have received
aid compared to Janajatis and lower castes. Further,
as income rises, the likelihood of having received aid
decreases sharply in all four survey rounds.
Do people still require assistance?
The number of people saying relief is or mill
be needed in the near future has increased.
In IRM-4, just 3% in the severely hit districts said
no relief was needed, a similar figure to that from
previous surveys. While those in lesser affected
districts are much more likely to say no relief is needed
(around three in 10 said so), this number has declined
markedly over time. For example, while 33% of people
in the crisis hit districts said they needed no aid in
IRM-4, this is a reduction from 65% at the time IRM-1
was conducted.
Who is providing aid?
The government continued to be the top aid
provider.
The government has been the top aid provider since
the earthquakes struck (Figure 3.3). In each survey,
those who received aid were asked who they got the
aid from. In IRM-4, almost everyone who received aid
(96%) received aid from the government. NGOs were
a consistent aid provider until IRM-4, with about one-
quarter of aid recipients naming them as the source of
aid in earlier surveys. INGOs were most active in the
period between June 2015 and February 2016 (31%
IRM-3). Individual donations accounted for 15% of
aid received in the early response period (IRM-1), but
it shrunk to 7% by IRM-2 and was only 1% of the aid
provided in both IRM-3 and IRM-4. The Red Cross
was also named as an aid provider in IRM-1 (12%) and
IRM-2 (15%), but fewer mentioned it in later surveys.
Figure 3.3: Source of aid amongst those who received aid (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
H Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1)
Among those who received aid since the 2016 and corrugated iron sheets (1%) were mentioned far
monsoon, cash (39%) was the most cited aid item less frequently.
received. Other items such as tarps (4%), food (3%)
25
Aid and the Housing Grants
Case Study 3.1: A single woman unable to rebuild
Khayuri is a 50-year-old single woman from
Baruwa VDC in Sindhupalchowk. Her husband
went to India more than 15 years ago and never
came back. Her house was completely damaged
during the earthquake. She owns some land
but says she cannot rebuild, as she has neither
money nor the help needed for construction.
“I have a wish to build a house, but I will need
a loan and who will believe me? I am alone, I
don’t have a son or husband so no-one will give
me a loan.†Khayuri has a daughter but they
live separately and she says that her daughter
cannot help her to build a new house.
Khyauri received the first installment of the hous-
ing reconstruction cash grant but is currently un-
able to use it. She said it took her a whole day to go
to the bank in Melamchi and receive the amount
in her bank account. “I have not even brought the
cash home,†she added, “it is in the bank. I can’t
build the house now so it is of no use bringing
the money here. I plan to use it sometime later to
rebuild the house when I can manage.â€
How much money have people received to date?
Figure 3.4: Share receiving cash from the
government and non-governmental sources
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Government Non-governmental sources
The share of people receiving cash from the
government increased only slightly suggest-
ing that the housing grant was generally tar-
geted at those who previously received cash
from the government.
IRM-4 collected data on how much cash assistance in
total people had received since the earthquakes, either
from the government or from non-governmental
sources. By April 2017, 55% of people in earthquake-
affected areas had received cash from the government
and 6% from non-governmental sources (Figure 3.4).
In earlier surveys, a slightly smaller share said they had
received aid from the government and a similar share
said they had received cash from non-governmental
sources. This suggests that most government cash
has been targeted at those who previously received
it, although there are some new beneficiaries, while
there has been little non-government cash going to
new people.22
Among those who have received cash grants, those in
earthquake-affected areas say they have received on
average NPR 56,845 from the government since the
earthquakes struck and NPR 13,082 from non-gov-
ernmental sources. In eight of the eleven surveyed
districts—all except Lamjung, Solukhumbu and Syang-
ja—the first tranche of the cash grant (NPR 50,000)
was provided before April 2017 when the survey was
conducted. This is reflected in the cumulative amounts
people say they have received from the government in
the nine districts, which all exceed NPR 50,000, with
the exception of Okhaldhunga. In contrast, govern-
ment cash recipients in the districts where the housing
grant had not yet been rolled out have received far
less, with the exception of Solukhumbu where people
have received more. Since the earthquakes, the largest
amount of non-governmental cash by far has gone
to Solukhumbu according to IRM-3 data, although
reported amounts received declined in IRM-4.
22 The reduction in people who say they have received cash from
non-government agencies over time suggests that people are for-
getting about earlier assistance from non-government providers.
26
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
3.2 People’s needs in earthquake-affected areas
What are current needs?
Cash and items to reconstruct houses remain
the most common stated needs.
Cash (69%) and items to reconstruct people’s houses
(30%) were most frequently stated as current priority
needs by survey respondents. Other items mentioned
included clean drinking water (9%), rice, wheat and
maize (7%), and corrugated iron sheets, clean water
for household purposes and farm implements (6%
each).23 Some changes in needs were observed. Cash
has been the top priority need since the earthquake,
and the share mentioning cash as either a current
or future need has continued to grow (38% IRM-1
present to 69% IRM-4 present). Reconstruction
material was the second most cited item with similar
shares mentioning it as a need in IRM-3 and IRM-4.
Corrugated iron sheets (37%), considered equally
necessary to cash (38%) in IRM-1, were not a high
priority by IRM-2. The stated need for rice, maize and
wheat also declined. Slightly higher shares mentioned
farm implements and clean water for drinking and for
household purposes as needs in the most recent survey
(IRM-4) compared to earlier ones.
Strong majorities expressed a need for cash across all
districts in IRM-4, but it was highest in the severely hit
districts (89%) - Table 3.1. For other most commonly
cited needs, too, higher shares in the severely hit
districts mentioned them compared to less impacted
districts.
Those interviewed for the qualitative research also
mentioned the need for better information on aid in
general and the housing grant process, in particular,
as well as on resettlement plans and the outcomes of
geological land assessments. Other needs frequently
mentioned by key informants were better access to
masons and engineers and improved road infrastruc-
ture to transport materials.
Table 3.1: Most mentioned current needs - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Cash Items to reconstruct house Clean drinking water Rice, wheat, maize Farm implements Corrugated iron sheets Clean water for household purposes
Severely hit 89% 46% 13% 14% 13% 11% 10%
Dhading 97% 27% 7% 3% 0% 6% 15%
Gorkha 86% 41% 9% 25% 9% 9% 7%
Nuwakot 85% 65% 21% 15% 41% 15% 8%
Ramechhap 96% 52% 18% 8% 4% 9% 4%
Sindhupalchowk 81% 52% 15% 18% 14% 16% 13%
Crisis hit 59% 22% 8% 2% 2% 2% 5%
Bhaktapur 65% 13% 6% 5% 4% 1% 1%
Kathmandu 56% 22% 8% 1% 1% 0% 6%
Okhaldhunga 78% 37% 7% 14% 8% 23% 2%
Hit with heavy losses 64% 33% 1% 6% 8% 15% 1%
Lamjung 47% 31% 0% 4% 11% 13% 0%
Solukhumbu 94% 37% 3% 10% 3% 18% 3%
Hit 69% 19% 2% 9% 5% 6% 1%
Syangja 69% 19% 2% 9% 5% 6% 1%
All districts 69% 30% 9% 7% 6% 6% 6%
Those in remote areas, in temporary shelters
and with lower incomes were more likely to
say they need cash.
The need for cash increases sharply with remoteness.
Those in less remote areas (19%) were far less likely to
mention items to reconstruct their house than people
living in more remote and remote areas (40% and
45%, respectively).
23 Respondents could mention up to three different items. Therefore,
percentages add up to more than 100%.
Aid and the Housing Grants
Those in temporary shelters, or living in a neighbor’s
house, were also far more likely than those in their
home to say they need cash. Those still living in self-
constructed shelters on other people’s land (64%)
were the most likely to mention items to reconstruct
house. Three in 10 living in their own house (30%)
and renting (28%) said they did not need any relief
items while almost no-one (between 0% and 1%) living
elsewhere said this.
The stated need for all items declines with income.
For instance, 84% with a low pre-earthquake income
said they require cash compared to 67% in the medium
income category and 56% in the high income one.
Though over six in 10 in any caste group mentioned
cash as a future need, Janajatis and those in lower
caste groups were more likely to say cash is a top future
need. The pattern was similar for other items. Similar
shares of women and men mentioned any of the top
priority items as a future need. Stated needs among
those with and without a disability were similar.
3.3 Satisfaction with aid distribution
and communication
Levels of satisfaction with aid providers
remained lower compared to the early months
after the earthquakes with few changes
between September 2016 (IRM-3) and April
2017 (IRM-4).
Satisfaction with most aid providers remained at a
similar level to September 2016 (Table 3.2). Satisfac-
tion levels were highest in the immediate aftermath
of the earthquakes and stayed high for most providers
through February 2016. There was then a sharp drop
by IRM-3.
In the IRM-4 survey, people expressed the highest
level of satisfaction with the police (56%), army
(55%) and the armed police force (53%), even though
these bodies were active only in the early response
period. People showed lower levels of satisfaction
with political parties (23%), religious groups (26%)
and private business groups (29%). Satisfaction with
the central government increased slightly but remains
below levels seen in the first year after the earthquakes.
In the survey, levels of satisfaction with INGOs and
NGOs stayed the same between IRM-3 and IRM-4.
In the qualitative research, however, rising levels of
satisfaction with I/NGOs were observed in IRM-4
compared to the previous research round. I/NGOs
had become more active in reconstruction by IRM-4
with many providing masonry trainings, technical
assistance and helping rebuild some houses. This
was assessed positively, especially in contrast to the
central government, which most saw as being too slow
in providing cash and other assistance.
Table 3.2: Proportion satisfied with aid providers (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Central government 56% 51% 40% 43%
Nepal army 90% 83% 48% 55%
Police 90% 82% 51% 56%
Armed police force 88% 80% 47% 53%
Political parties 36% 26% 21% 23%
Local administration centers 33% 60% 43% 36%
INGOs 75% 73% 39% 39%
NGOs 69% 70% 41% 41%
Local community organizations 63% 66% 49% 49%
Private business groups 53% 51% 29% 29%
Foreign governments 72% 67% 40% 40%
Religious groups 51% 53% 26% 26%
28
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Fairness of aid distribution
The percentage of people saying they believe
that all can get aid according to their needs
remained similar. Those ivho disagreed
thought that loiv castes, Janajatis and the
disabled mere getting less aid.
People in the severely hit districts have consistently
been the most likely to agree with the statement that
VDCs/municipalities have been distributing aid fairly
(Figure 3.5). Those in crisis hit districts have been
most uniform in their views over time with around
one-half agreeing that aid distribution has been fair. A
majority in the hit with heavy losses districts believed
that aid distribution had been fair until February 2016,
but the share saying so declined in September 2016
and by April 2017 was at 36%.
Jun 2015 Feb-Mar Sep 2016 Apr 2017
(IRM-1) 2016 (IRM-3) (IRM-4)
(IRM-2)
Figure 3.5: Change in the share of people who
agree that VDCs/municipalities have been distrib-
uting aid fairly - by district impact (IRM-1, IRM-2,
IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
â– * Severely hit Hit with heavy losses
Crisis hit Hit
Across caste groups, there have been differences in
perceptions of the fairness of aid distribution in the
last three surveys: in IRM-2 high caste people were
less likely to say aid distribution had been fair; in
IRM-3 and IRM-4, those of lower caste were the least
likely to think so. Those with a high pre-earthquake
income have been consistently less likely than people
with lower incomes to think that aid distribution has
been fair. There is little difference in perceptions of
fairness of aid distribution between women and men.
people agree that everyone is able to equally access
aid according to their needs. However, compared to
IRM-2, the share saying that they agree nearly halved
in IRM-3 (88% to 54%). Results in IRM-3 and IRM-4
were similar (Figure 3.6).
(IRM-2) (IRM-3) (IRM-4)
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Somewhat agree Don't know
I Somewhat disagree
Those who said that they either strongly or somewhat
disagreed with the statement that everyone is able
to access aid equally were asked which groups they
thought tended to get less aid. Those belonging to
low castes have always been the group cited most
frequently (36% IRM-2, 53% IRM-3, 39% IRM-4) -
Figure 3.7. Similar shares have mentioned Janajatis
or the disabled and people who are sick. Compared
to IRM-2, widows, elderly and women are mentioned
less in IRM-3 and IRM-4. Notably in IRM-2, people of
higher caste were mentioned as a group that tended
to get less aid (27%) and even in IRM-4 they were
slightly more likely to be named than either women
or the elderly.
Since IRM-2, people in earthquake-affected areas have
been asked whether they think everyone is able to
receive aid equally according to their needs. In general,
29
Aid and the Housing Grants
Figure 3.7: Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not everyone
is able to get aid equally (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 weighted)
Apr 2017 (IRM-4) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Feb 2016 (IRM-2)
Aid communication
Neighbors, the radio and VDC secretaries
remained the primary sources of information
on aid.
In the survey, seven in 10 people said that neighbors
were a primary source of information on earthquake
aid. Four in 10 mentioned the radio and one-quarter
said the VDC secretary. The Ward Citizens’ Forum
(15%) and political parties (7%) were also mentioned
relatively frequently. While neighbors remain the top
source of information, the share mentioning the radio
has gone up 12 points since IRM-3 (Table 3.3). In the
qualitative research, neighbors and family were also
found to be the main source of information on aid,
especially on the housing grant, alongside VDC offices,
social mobilizers, engineers and the radio.
Table 3.3: Top five sources of information on aid - by district impact and district (IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Neighbor Radio VDC secretary Ward Citizens’ Forum Political party
Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017
Severely hit 82% 81% 29% 33% 39% 40% 36% 23% 10% 7%
Dhading 82% 92% 28% 55% 25% 39% 41% 27% 5% 4%
Gorkha 84% 75% 29% 14% 37% 21% 37% 15% 9% 5%
Nuwakot 99% 73% 44% 36% 58% 67% 19% 9% 7% 15%
Ramechhap 72% 85% 28% 31% 57% 27% 26% 15% 17% 3%
Sindhupalchowk 73% 79% 15% 24% 29% 45% 53% 43% 14% 8%
Hit with heavy losses 80% 71% 51% 29% 19% 39% 3% 8% 21% 19%
Bhaktapur 90% 69% 25% 36% 9% 15% 11% 16% 5% 1%
30
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Neighbor Radio VDC secretary Ward Citizens’ Forum Political party
Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017 Sep 2016 Apr 2017
Kathmandu 85% 70% 28% 53% 11% 13% 11% 13% 1% 3%
Okhaldhunga 62% 84% 23% 42% 62% 47% 19% 2% 14% 3%
Crisis hit 84% 71% 28% 50% 14% 15% 12% 13% 2% 2%
Lamjung 74% 70% 47% 23% 22% 43% 4% 4% 28% 24%
Solukhumbu 92% 72% 58% 39% 12% 32% 1% 16% 9% 12%
Hit 62% 60% 50% 46% 38% 15% 4% 1% 11% 7%
Syangja 62% 60% 50% 46% 38% 15% 4% 1% 11% 7%
All districts 82% 73% 31% 43% 24% 25% 18% 15% 7% 5%
★Multiple responses are allowed so numbers do not add up to 100%
People were most satisfied with local commu-
nity organizations on how they communicate
about aid.
Of the different aid providers asked about in IRM-
4, local community organizations (56%), the police
(53%), the army (52%), and the armed police force
(50%) received positive reviews on how they have
communicated about aid - Table 3.4. People were
most likely to be dissatisfied with local political parties
(54%). Satisfaction with local community organiza-
tions is up 7 points since IRM-3, and it is up slightly
for the army, the armed police force, and private
businesses as well. Levels of dissatisfaction have either
stayed the same or declined, with more people now
unsure how to rate the various aid providers on how
they have communicated about aid.
Table 3.4: Satisfaction with how aid providers have communicated about aid (IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Satisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied
Central government 40% 50% 41% 41%
Nepal army 48% 37% 52% 23%
Police 51% 34% 53% 23%
Armed police force 47% 37% 50% 23%
Local political parties 21% 67% 25% 54%
Local administration centers 43% 455 36% 43%
INGOs 39% 43% 34% 26%
NGOs 42% 43% 36% 27%
Local community organizations 49% 37% 56% 23%
Private businesses 31% 50% 34% 31%
Foreign governments 34% 38% 30% 26%
Religious groups 27% 42% 28% 27%
The survey also looked at whether people felt comfort-
able approaching different providers to either receive
information or lodge a complaint. In both IRM-3 and
IRM-4, most thought that ease of communication with
various aid providers was bad or at best okay.
In April 2017, the central government (48% bad),
INGOs (47%), and foreign governments (51%) were
the most likely to be rated poorly. People also rated
these bodies poorly in IRM-3, but now fewer people
held negative views than in the past (e.g. INGOs 63%
bad in IRM-3, 47% bad in IRM-4). People were most
positive about local community organizations, the
police and local administration centers.
31
Aid and the Housing Grants
3.4 The damage assessment and housing grants
The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
damage assessment
Satisfaction with the damage assessment was
higher in severely hit districts and among
those whose house had been listed as fully
damaged.
Across all districts, most people were either very (38%)
or somewhat satisfied (43%) with how their house was
classified in the most recent damage assessment. Rel-
atively few said that they were somewhat (9%) or very
unsatisfied (7%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the
severely hit districts where a far larger share of houses
were declared fully damaged (Table 3.5). Within these
districts, people were most likely to be dissatisfied in
Gorkha (16% dissatisfied), the severely hit district that
had the lowest share of house identified as fully dam-
aged (84%). Levels of dissatisfaction were higher in the
hit with heavy losses and hit districts - 26% and 23%,
respectively. Lamjung, where almost half of people say
their house was classified as not being damaged, had
the highest rate of dissatisfaction (49%).
Table 3.5: Satisfaction with the most recent housing damage assessment -
by district and district impact (IRM-4, weighted)
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Don’t know
Severely hit 56% 34% 4% 4% 2%
Dhading 74% 18% 2% 4% 2%
Gorkha 47% 34% 9% 7% 3%
Nuwakot 59% 36% 1% 2% 2%
Ramechhap 32% 58% 4% 5% 1%
Sindhupalchowk 52% 40% 3% 4% 1%
Crisis hit 23% 51% 12% 9% 6%
Bhaktapur 54% 34% 9% 1% 2%
Kathmandu 12% 59% 12% 12% 5%
Okhaldhunga 32% 29% 12% 4% 24%
Hit with heavy losses 26% 46% 21% 5% 2%
Lamjung 17% 40% 30% 9% 3%
Solukhumbu 33% 51% 13% 1% 1%
Hit 12% 55% 10% 13% 10%
Syangja 12% 55% 10% 13% 10%
All districts 38% 43% 9% 7% 4%
Few people who said their house was classified as fully
damaged were dissatisfied (6%) with the classification.
In contrast, 35% of those who said their house was
classified as not damaged/normal, and 41% of those
whose house was classified as being partially damaged,
were dissatisfied with their damage categorization.
People whose house was classified as partially dam-
aged were slightly more likely to be very unsatisfied
(18%) compared to those who were classified as having
undamaged (12%) or fully damaged (2%) houses.
The Rural Housing Reconstruction Program (RHRP):
distribution, access and eligibility
Nearly all of those who were declared eligible
for the RHRP grant had received the first
installment by April 2017.
By the time IRM-4 was conducted in April 2017, the
first tranche of the RHRP housing grant had gone out
in the severely hit and crisis hit districts that were sur-
veyed. Provision of the first tranche of the grant in the
other districts—Solukhumbu, Lamjung and Syangja—
only began in late April 2017 and was thus not covered
in the survey. The qualitative research did not find any
evidence of security concerns, protests or other major
concerns regarding the distribution process. The first
installment was primarily distributed via banks at the
32
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
district headquarters and in other market hubs. No
mobile banks had been deployed to VDCs visited but
in Okhaldhunga a helicopter was arranged to transport
the cash to remote VDCs.
The IRM-4 survey data show that the vast majority
of people who say they were declared eligible for the
grant received the first tranche. People who said they
were declared eligible in Kathmandu and Dhading
were the most likely to say they have not received the
first tranche (19% and 14%, respectively) - Table 3.6.
Receipt of the housing grant continues to be defined as
deposit in the beneficiary bank account and there is no
official data on who has actually withdrawn the money.
The qualitative research found that most beneficiaries
had indeed been able to access their first installment
but some had not, either choosing to save the money
in their account or being unable to travel to the bank
due to long distances, illness or being away.
The majority of beneficiaries found it easy
or at least somewhat easy to access their
first installment of the housing grant but
challenges around access persisted with
around 20% finding it difficult. Common
reasons for difficulties in accessing banks
were delays in processing documentation at
the VDC office, missing documentation, and
long travel distances/remoteness.
Those who had received the first tranche of the NRA
grant were asked how easy they thought it was to
receive it. Twenty-eight percent said it was very easy
and 51% said it was somewhat easy with 15% saying
it was somewhat difficult and 15% very difficult
(Table 3.7). Those in Kathmandu (43%) were the
most likely to say they had difficulties accessing the
grant and difficulties were also relatively common in
Sindhulpalchowk, where 22% found it difficult.
Table 3.6: Share who received the first tranche of
the RHRP grant among those who say they were
declared eligible - by district impact and district
(IRM-4, weighted)
Got NRA grant Did not get NRA grant
Severely hit 93% 7%
Dhading 86% 14%
Gorkha 94% 6%
Nuwakot 96% 4%
Ramechhap 97% 3%
Sindhupalchowk 97% 3%
Crisis hit 85% 15%
Bhaktapur 94% 6%
Kathmandu 81% 19%
Okhaldhunga 95% 5%
All severely hit and crisis hit districts 90% 10%
Table 3.7: Ease of getting first tranche of NRA grant - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat difficult Very difficult
Severely hit 36% 50% 11% 3%
Dhading 70% 18% 7% 4%
Gorkha 44% 42% 9% 4%
Nuwakot 5% 87% 6% 1%
Ramechhap 26% 59% 13% 1%
Sindhupalchowk 28% 51% 17% 5%
Crisis hit 15% 52% 24% 10%
Bhaktapur 19% 64% 11% 6%
Kathmandu 10% 47% 30% 13%
Okhaldhunga 34% 53% 11% 2%
All severely hit and crisis hit districts 28% 51% 15% 6%
Delays from the VDC (50%) and not having documen-
tation (46%) were the two top reasons given by people
who found it either somewhat or very difficult to get
the first tranche of the NRA grant. Other reasons in-
clude: remoteness/distance (20%), not understanding
the rules (19%), high expenses incurred (11%), delays
from the bank (9%) and conflicts related to damage
estimation (1%). People living in less remote areas
(32%) were far more likely to have found it difficult to
get the first tranche of the housing grant compared to
those in remote (16%) and more remote (17%) areas.
33
Aid and the Housing Grants
The qualitative research helps explain why some of
those who were eligible had still not received the first
installment. In seven out of nine VDCs visited for
the qualitative research where the first installment
had been distributed, fewer people had received the
first installment than were listed as beneficiaries (the
shortfall ranged from 3 to 40 people in the VDCs
visited). The most common reasons for this were the
house owner being away or missing documentation
such as missing landownership certificates. As re-
ported in IRM-3, beneficiaries also sometimes had
difficulties opening bank accounts and accessing the
first installment due to mistakes that had happened
while entering beneficiary details in lists or the cash
grant agreement forms. The most common mistakes
were spelling mistakes and mistakes in the citizenship
certificate or household number. If the details on
the ID card, the cash grant agreement form and the
beneficiary list did not match, beneficiaries were not
allowed to access the first installment. Many had to
make corrections to their documentation, which often
required several days to visit various offices at the VDC
and district levels.
Long travel distances to access banks not only meant
increased costs but also security risks along the way.
It was common in VDCs visited for beneficiaries to
jointly rent buses or trucks to transport them or to
walk in groups. There were no reports of robberies
in VDCs visited but two people drowned in a river
in Sindhupalchowk while returning from the bank.
One of them, an old man, was from Baruwa VDC. In
Sindhupalchowk, it was also pointed out that with
many household heads being women, as men tend to
work abroad, it was also common for women to have
to travel to banks.
Access to the first installment was more
complicated for those trying to receive the
cash grant on behalf of a listed beneficiary.
Although the cash grant can be received by someone
other than the listed beneficiary if he or she nominates
someone else in the household by power of attorney,
the process is more difficult in such cases. Additional
documentation in the form of a recommendation letter
from the VDC office, verified by the DDC is needed. In
Baruwa VDC, Sindhupalchowk, 11 nominees received
the first installment after the VDC Secretary called
on political parties to verify nominees and decide on
who should receive a recommendation letter. Yet,
in most other VDCs, households where the listed
beneficiary is absent were unable to access the cash
grant despite the special provisions for such cases.
In Syaule VDC, Sindhupalchowk, 11 nominee women
whose husbands were abroad did not hear back from
the DDC despite the VDC Secretary forwarding their
forms. In Baruneshwor, Okhaldhunga, a young man
trying to rebuild the family home was denied access
to his father’s cash grant as his father, the listed
beneficiary, was abroad.
Many of those declared non-eligible believe
they should have been eligible for the grant
as their houses were completely or badly
damaged.
People not declared eligible for the grant were asked
whether they thought they should have been eligible.
Eighty-two percent of people surveyed in the severely
hit districts who said they were not declared eligible
believed they should have been. In the crisis hit
districts, the proportion was 29%, with the exception
of Okhaldhunga (71%). In September 2016 (IRM-
3) and April 2017 (IRM-4), qualitative researchers
encountered many households in all districts visited
who seemed to have been wrongly excluded from the
beneficiary lists and were dissatisfied with the lack of
clarity on the assessment and eligibility criteria.
The share believing they should have been eligible
increases with remoteness: 29% in less remote areas,
42% in remote areas and 70% in more remote areas
hold this view. Low income and low caste people who
were declared ineligible are far more likely to think
this was a mistake than others. Widows are also more
likely to say they should have been eligible.
Some of these perceptions on unfair exclusion from
the RHRP are a result of misunderstanding of the
eligibility criteria. The program is only meant to cover
those whose house was significantly impacted by the
earthquakes. However, 33% of those who felt they
were unfairly excluded reported that their house only
needed minor repairs.
Those wrongly excluded from beneficiary
lists generally had not yet received their first
installment even if they had filed a grievance
form.
Most grievances were yet to be processed or the results
of grievance processing had yet to be communicated
to concerned households. Yet, those whose grievance
had been approved had also still not received the first
installment of the grant. They were informed that they
would be able to complete the cash grant agreement
process only after the local elections.
34
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Information and awareness
The majority of those declared eligiblefor the
housing grant knew about increases in the
size of the grant.
The grant amount for the RHRP was increased to NPR
300,000 from an initially planned NPR 200,000.
Overall, 79% of people said they are aware that the
grant size had increased.24 Awareness of the increase
in the size of the housing grant declines with levels of
earthquake impact: 90% in the severely hit districts
know about the increase, compared to 79% in the crisis
hit districts, and just over half in the hit with heavy
losses (52%) and hit districts (50%). This is likely due
to more people in more affected areas being eligible
for the grant and thus following information on it.
Knowledge of the increase in the grant is closely tied
to grant eligibility. Those declared eligible for the NRA
grant were more likely than those who were not to
know of the change (92% to 67%). Similarly, among
those declared grant eligible, those who had actually
received the grant (92%) were slightly more likely than
those who say they have yet to receive it (87%) to know
of the increase in grant amount.
Around half of those who received the first
installment of the housing grant said they
were unaware of the requirements for the
second tranche.
Receiving the second tranche of the RHRP grant is
conditional upon meeting certain criteria. We asked
people who got the first tranche (90% of those declared
eligible for it) whether or not they knew what the
requirements for getting the second tranche are.25
Similar shares of the recipients of the first tranche
said they knew (47%) or were unaware (50%) of the
requirements for the second tranche. Just over half
of those in the severely hit districts (54%) knew of the
requirements, while six in 10 in the crisis hit districts
say they did not know what the requirements were
(Table 3.8). Ramechhap and Nuwakot residents were
the most likely (64% each), and those in Bhaktapur
(24%) the least likely, to know of these requirements.
Of the severely hit districts, Sindhupalchok was
the only district where the share unaware of the
requirements was higher than those who know of it.
24 This includes all people, not just those declared eligible for the
RHRP grant.
25 The analysis only includes people in severely hit and crisis hit
districts where the first tranche had been disbursed at the time
of the IRM-4 survey.
Table 3.8: Knowledge of requirements to get the
second tranche of RHRP grant among those who
got the first tranche - by district impact and district
(IRM-4, weighted)
Yes No Don’t know
Severely hit 54% 43% 3%
Dhading 50% 46% 4%
Gorkha 54% 40% 6%
Nuwakot 64% 35% 1%
Ramechhap 64% 32% 4%
Sindhupalchowk 44% 54% 1%
Crisis hit 33% 62% 4%
Bhaktapur 24% 71% 4%
Kathmandu 35% 60% 5%
Okhaldhunga 41% 59% 0%
All severely hit and crisis hit districts 47% 50% 4%
Earthquake affected people interviewed in
the qualitative research said they needed
better and more timely information on the
housing cash grant process, in particular on
grievances, building requirements and access
to soft loans.
The lack of information and resulting confusion about
the housing grant process were of concern for most
beneficiaries and key stakeholders. In particular, there
was a lack of clarity about the timeline for the distri-
bution of the second installment, grievances, building
codes and retrofitting options, and access to credit and
soft loans. Residents interviewed in the VDCs visited
had sometimes heard about the soft loans designed
specifically for earthquake affected households but
generally said they did not know where and how to
access them or feared they did not have enough col-
lateral. Researchers did not meet or hear of anyone
who had been able to access these loans. While during
previous research rounds, people still had hope that
they would receive special loans from the government
- many even took loans at high interest rates in the
expectation that they would soon be able to repay them
by taking an interest-free loan from the government
- by IRM-4, they had become more skeptical. A Dalit
in Barpak VDC, Gorkha, said, “a government loan is
a very distant reality for earthquake victims. It is very
uncertain whether the government will provide loans
to earthquake victims since they have not even distrib-
uted the second installment yet.†A teacher in Sindhu-
palchowk said, “the soft loans for reconstruction are
just a rumor. No bank will ever provide such loans.â€
Confusion about government-approved building de-
signs was common. Beneficiaries frequently reported
35
Aid and the Housing Grants
having been given contradictory advice. Those who
had already rebuilt on their own or with non-govern-
mental assistance were often unsure whether they
would qualify for the housing grant. Others said they
received contradictory advice from engineers during
the inspection process or no technical guidance at all
and were therefore unsure how to build. For example,
in some locations the instructions given by govern-
ment and non-government engineers differed, while
in other areas, people had not received any advice
on whether and how they could adjust the building
codes to local cultural and practical needs, how much
distance to keep from roads, or whether they could
repair/retrofit their house. Those who had already
rebuilt but had failed the inspection process had also
not yet been given any information on the outcome
of the inspection process and consequences as, at
the local level, there were expectations that building
requirements would be adjusted in the near future
and more would retrospectively qualify despite minor
violations of the building codes.
Most of those who had filed complaints also remained
uncertain about what had happened to their grievance
forms and whether they would eventually receive the
cash grant. Nearly all of the citizens interviewed who
had filed complaints had not yet received any further
information. “Nothing has happened to our grievances
filed. I don’t even know whether it will be addressed
or not. I don’t have any hope now,†said a resident of
Lisankhu VDC, Sindhupalchowk. Similarly, a resi-
dent of Dhuwakot VDC, Gorkha, said, “I am unaware
whether my grievance was heard by the government.
I have received no information from the VDC or local
leaders.†Those whose complaints had either been ap-
proved or rejected generally knew about the outcome
but, as mentioned above, those added to the benefi-
ciary lists had not yet received their first installment.
Impact and use of the grant to date
The distribution of the first installment of the
housing grant was a key factor in increasing
reconstruction efforts in late 2016 and early
2017. This positive impact was offset by the
slow distribution of and uncertainty about
who would qualify for further installments.
The qualitative research observed a clear increase in
reconstruction efforts between September 2016 and
April 2017. The distribution of the first tranche of
the housing reconstruction grant, as well as suitable
weather for construction during the winter months,
were generally credited for this. As such, the grant
did encourage the rebuilding of homes. Yet, the initial
impact of the distribution of the first installment on
reconstruction did not last as many of those who had
begun rebuilding after receiving the first installment
did not continue, primarily due to delays in and
uncertainty around the distribution and eligibility
for the second installment. Overall, progress in
reconstruction remained slow and many were not
following the government’s guidelines.
A majority of people who said they had
received the first tranche of the housing
grant said they had done nothing to start (re)
building.
Fifty-eight percent of those who said they got the grant
also said they had not started (re)building, compared
to 68% who did not get grant (Table 3.9). Those who
did not receive the grant were slightly more likely
(20%) than those who did (13%) to have fully repaired/
rebuild house and live in it. Previous IRM research
rounds found that people who were declared eligible
for the grant often rebuilt slower as they were waiting
for or require further tranches of the grant to finish
rebuilding.
Table 3.9: Whether people have started rebuilding homes - by whether
or not they received the first tranche (IRM-4, weighted)
Got NRA grant 1% 58% 13% 6% 10% 12%
Did not get NRA grant 1% 68% 20% 1% 6% 4%
Grant recipients in the more affected severely hit People in Dhading and Sindhupalchowk were the least
districts were less likely than those in the crisis hit likely to have started rebuilding.
districts to have started rebuilding - Table 3.10.
36
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Case Study 3.2: Man Bahadur’s struggle to rebuild
Man Bahadur Tamang, from Katunje VDC in
Okhaldhunga, has rebuilt his house, but the
process was not easy. For Man Bahadur, his
was a story of gunaso (grievance).
After the earthquakes, Man Bahadur lived in
a temporary shelter, like many others in the
VDC. But the people in the shelter often got
sick during the winter and monsoon and were
unable to keep their food safe from dogs, cats
and wild animals. “We lived in fear, fear of
snakes, frogs, leeches. So, even if it meant going
into debt, I was determined to rebuild my house
as soon as possible.†Man Bahadur wanted to
begin rebuilding right away but said he was told
to wait for the first installment of the housing
cash grant. Immediately after receiving it, he
began construction and he completed the house
before receiving the subsequent installments of
the housing grant.
Man Bahadur spent nearly five lakhs (NPR
500,000) on a two-room house. Firstly, he
had to pay for the labor. Due to the shortage
of construction workers in Okhaldhunga, Man
Bahadur had to go far, to three different loca-
tions, in search of masons. Four masons and
three construction laborers, each charging NPR
1,000 daily, worked on the house during the
construction phase, alongside family members.
In addition to their wages, he had to pay for
three meals a day, alcohol and, twice a month,
meat for the laborers.
Secondly, the cost of construction materials
and the transportation of these materials to
his house was high. The lack of road access to
Man Bahadur’s house meant that there were
additional costs for carrying materials. Since the
transportation of sand for cement and stones
or bricks would have been too expensive, Man
Bahadur decided to build a mud-mortar-wood
house. Hiring a tractor to transport sand to
the nearest road would have costs him at least
NPR 6,000 and from there he would have had
to hire porters to carry the sacks of sand one by
one to his house, which is one day’s walk from
the road. But he still had to buy corrugated iron
sheets for his roof, which cost him NPR 81,000
plus around NPR 5,000 to hire a vehicle and
porters to transport the sheets up to his house.
Man Bahadur had to borrow around NPR
254,000 from family and friends to build his
house. In addition, two of his sons who were
working in India sent around NPR 200,000
and he also spent the NPR 50,000 first install-
ment of the housing cash grant. Man Bahadur
explained, “I still have some minor expenses
now [such as a religious ceremony for the new
house]. I have filled the form for the second in-
stallment, but I am not sure when I will receive
it. Since I have completed my house, it would
be easier for me if I received all the remaining
installments in one go. I have run into debt.â€
For technical assistance, Man Bahadur had to
actively seek out engineers and bring them to
his house from far away. At first, Man Bahadur
had to go to a settlement an hour’s distance
from his house to consult an engineer and bring
him to his construction site. He showed the
engineer his newly laid foundations and asked
for advice on how to continue building. “After I
consulted the engineer, I began constructing my
house [...]. The engineer taught me how to use
the ‘safety lock’. [...] I have built a strong house
now. I have used a total of five ‘safety locks’.â€
During construction, Man Bahadur had to
make corrections to qualify for further install-
ments of the housing grant. At first, as he was
building his wall, he was told by a technician
that “everything was fineâ€. However, when an
engineer visited a few weeks later, he was told
that he had to reduce the height of the walls.
“I was raising the walls of my house, and I was
told that the house had become too high. I had
finished roofing within 18 days but the engineer
asked me to reduce the height of the walls by
one foot and it took me two days to demolish
one foot of the walls. For this, I unnecessarily
had to spend double.â€
In Man Bahadur’s ward, 18 households had
rebuilt, five had begun construction by laying
the foundations, and 11 households had not
yet started to rebuild. Observations suggested
residents of Katunje VDC were rebuilding faster
compared to other VDCs visited in Okhald-
hunga.
37
Aid and the Housing Grants
Table 3.10: Whether people who have received the first tranche of the RHRP grant
have started rebuilding - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
House not damaged Not done anything Started rebuilding
Severely hit 0% 61% 38%
Dhading 0% 69% 30%
Gorkha 1% 48% 50%
Nuwakot 0% 58% 42%
Ramechhap 1% 59% 40%
Sindhupalchowk 0% 69% 31%
Crisis hit 2% 53% 45%
Bhaktapur 5% 52% 43%
Kathmandu 1% 54% 45%
Okhaldhunga 2% 54% 45%
All severely hit and crisis hit districts 1% 58% 40%
Those who had not yet started rebuilding
were most likely to say this was because of
reasons related to a lack ofcash and high
building costs.
Despite the increase in the size of the grant, the average
estimates people give to rebuild their house vastly
exceed the size of the grant in all districts. Estimated
costs of rebuilding/reconstruction ranged between
NPR 684,138 in Okhaldhunga to NPR 2,983,510 in
Bhaktapur. In most districts, average estimated costs
ranged between around NPR 700,000 to 900,000,
while in Sindhupalchowk estimated costs were NPR
1,030,683 and in Solukhumbu and Kathmandu they
were over NPR 2,000,000.
While the grant was not designed to cover all costs
of reconstruction, many of those interviewed in the
qualitative research were dissatisfied that it covered
only a fraction of the overall costs, with many unable to
find the additional cash without going abroad or taking
loans at high interest rates. Increased construction
costs due to rising prices for materials, labor and
transportation were among the most commonly cited
obstacles to rebuilding in the qualitative research.
The NPR 300,000 grant will likely cover less than
half of the total costs required for rebuilding. In the
severely hit districts, 35% say it will cover less than
25% of the costs and 48% say it will cover between
25-50% of costs (Table 3.11). In the crisis hit districts,
which include the urban areas of Kathmandu and
Bhaktapur, a strong majority (65%) say less than one-
quarter of the costs will be covered by the RHRP grant.
In lesser-affected districts, two in three say between
25-50% of the costs will be covered by the RHRP grant.
Table 3.11: Share of rebuilding costs that the RHRP grant will cover - by district
impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% Most (over 75%) All Don’t know
Severely hit 35% 48% 10% 2% 1% 5%
Dhading 22% 66% 10% 1% 0% 1%
Gorkha 25% 43% 17% 5% 1% 9%
Nuwakot 42% 39% 8% 1% 0% 9%
Ramechhap 22% 62% 13% 1% 1% 2%
Sindhupalchowk 57% 35% 4% 2% 1% 2%
Crisis hit 65% 11% 5% 3% 9% 6%
Bhaktapur 86% 2% 1% 1% 0% 12%
Kathmandu 67% 5% 5% 4% 14% 5%
Okhaldhunga 17% 62% 15% 3% 0% 4%
Hit with heavy losses 0% 67% 11% 2% 2% 18%
Lamjung 0% 70% 7% 0% 0% 22%
Solukhumbu 0% 55% 27% 9% 9% 0%
38
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% Most (over 75%) All Don’t know
Hit 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%
Syangja 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%
All districts 45% 35% 8% 2% 4% 5%
Across all districts, just 37% of people said
they are using/will use the grant for the
intended purpose of building a new house
using an accepted model, a drop from 44%
in IRM-3-
The proportion saying they would use RHRP funds
to build according to the requirements of the housing
grant scheme was highest in Dhading, Ramechhap and
Sindhulpalchowk (Table 3.12). Almost one-quarter of
people said they would use the funds for livelihood
support, a large increase since IRM-3, and 7% said
they would use the funds to pay off loans. Nine percent
of people say they would use the funds to build a house
which they were not sure is earthquake-resistant. Over
one-quarter said they would use the fund to rebuild/
retrofit a previous house. Janajatis and lower caste
people (24% each) were slightly more likely than
higher caste groups (19%) to say they would use the
first tranche for livelihood support.26 Those with low
pre-earthquake incomes were more likely than people
in the middle and high income categories to say they
would use the first tranche of the grant to pay off loans
or for livelihood support.
Table 3.12: Use of/planned use of first tranche of RHRP grant among those declared eligible to receive it -
by district impact and district (IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Rebuild/retrofit previous house Build new house using accepted NRA model Build new house not using NRA model/not sure if new house will be NRA model Pay off loans Livelihoods support For other things Don’t know/can’t say
IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4 IRM-3 IRM-4
Severely hit 21% 24% 55% 49% 5% 5% 6% 8% 9% 23% 2% 12% 5% 1%
Dhading 53% 7% 37% 77% 1% 2% 0% 9% 1% 20% 1% 18% 8% 1%
Gorkha 14% 47% 53% 24% 17% 4% 0% 7% 6% 20% 3% 8% 8% 2%
Nuwakot 46% 39% 3% 26% 1% 10% 1% 16% 12% 25% 0% 11% 25% 1%
Ramechhap 0% 17% 0% 59% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 18% 0% 6% 0% 2%
Sindhupalchowk 50% 10% 0% 58% 0% 4% 0% 4% 12% 28% 0% 16% 25% 1%
Crisis hit 25% 35% 30% 16% 10% 18% 10% 5% 30% 21% 0% 8% 5% 3%
Bhaktapur 7% 58% 40% 9% 7% 2% 7% 6% 13% 13% 0% 9% 27% 3%
Kathmandu 7% 31% 24% 14% 0% 25% 12% 4% 9% 21% 0% 1% 54% 4%
Okhaldhunga 0% 16% 44% 43% 0% 5% 22% 10% 11% 34% 0% 42% 33% 1%
Hit with heavy losses 8% 54% 58% 11% 6% 2% 12% 12% 12% 43% 3% 6% 5% 3%
Lamjung 14% 52% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 11% 7% 41% 0% 7% 79% 4%
Solukhumbu 0% 64% 0% 9% 0% 9% 0% 18% 0% 55% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Hit 3% 67% 92% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 8% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Syangja 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 100% 0%
All districts 25% 28% 44% 37% 4% 9% 5% 7% 10% 22% 1% 11% 11% 2%
26 People could give multiple uses. As such, numbers do not add
up to 100%.
39
Aid and the Housing Grants
In the survey, most of those who got the first
tranche were at least somewhat confident
that they would be able to receive the second
installment of the housing grant.
Those who received the first tranche of the NRA grant
were asked whether they were confident of being able
to get the next tranche. Eight in 10 grantees in the
severely hit districts were confident of being able to
get the second tranche of the NRA grant, as are six in
10 in crisis hit districts - Table 3.13. Nearly two in 10
in the severely hit districts (18%) and just over three in
10 in the crisis hit districts (34%) were not confident
that they would get the second tranche of the RHRP
grant. Those in Kathmandu (40%) and Bhaktapur
(31%) were the most likely to not be confident about
getting the second tranche of the NRA grant.
Table 3.13: Confidence in getting the second tranche of the RHRP grant among those
who got the first tranche - by district and district impact (IRM-4, weighted)
Very confident Somewhat confident Not too confident Not at all confident Don’t know
Severely hit 20% 60% 17% 1% 3%
Dhading 26% 44% 24% 1% 5%
Gorkha 21% 55% 18% 2% 5%
Nuwakot 18% 64% 18% 0% 1%
Ramechhap 10% 73% 13% 0% 4%
Sindhupalchowk 20% 68% 10% 0% 1%
Crisis hit 11% 53% 30% 4% 3%
Bhaktapur 11% 54% 21% 11% 4%
Kathmandu 9% 49% 37% 3% 3%
Okhaldhunga 20% 72% 4% 1% 3%
All severely hit and crisis hit districts 16% 57% 21% 2% 3%
Those who used, or said they would use, the first
tranche to build a new house following an accepted
building model were the most likely to be confident
they would receive the second tranche (23% very
confident, 56% somewhat confident). However, three-
quarters of grantees who used it for purposes other
than housing (paying off debt, livelihood support,
etc.) also thought they would get the second tranche
of the grant. Confidence levels among those who will
use/used it to pay off loans (23% very confident, 58%
somewhat confident) and those who will use/used
it to build a house using approved building models
(23% very confident, 56% somewhat confident) are
nearly identical.
The qualitative research revealed that un-
certainty about the second installment was
increasing.
Dissatisfaction over delay in distributing the second
tranche of the grant were widespread. Most expected
to have received the second installment by April
2017 and said they could not continue rebuilding
without it. Indeed, the qualitative research observed
that the pace of reconstruction had slowed down by
April 2017 after more people had begun rebuilding
over the winter months. Beneficiaries were told that
the second installment would be distributed only
after the completion of local elections. However,
some also complained about delays in the inspection
of houses, insufficient application forms for the
second installment, and general uncertainty about
requirements and eligibility for the second installment.
As the time between the first and second payment
of the grant increased, more people were beginning
to doubt whether they would receive the second
installment at all. Many of those interviewed in the
qualitative research voiced frustration over widespread
uncertainty and lack of information about the second
installment. Researchers also encountered rumors
that the second installment would not be distributed
or that those unable to fulfill the requirements would
have to return the first installment. “Many people have
problems to build a new house as the old materials
have been damaged, and they do not have the financial
capacity [...]. Soft loans are inaccessible so far, and
people are not even sure about the second tranche
of the government’s housing cash grant. This is why
many people do not dare to start reconstruction,†said
a resident of Barpak VDC, Gorkha. In Lisankhu VDC,
Sindhupalchowk, one person complained that, “people
are confused about whether the second installment
of the cash grant will be released.†In Baruwa VDC,
Sindhupalchowk, a resident said, “More than sixty
thousand rupees was spent on clearing the land. Now,
40
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
how to start building the house, the government is not
providing us the second installment [of the housing
cash grant] and I cannot continue [building].â€
Forty-seven percent of people declared eligible across
all districts, said they knew what the requirements
for receiving the second tranche of the grant were.
Knowing these conditions has a small impact on
whether people say they would use the first tranche of
funds in line with the program’s purpose. Forty-three
percent of those who said they know the conditions
plan to use the funds to build a new house following
government regulations compared to 32% of those
who said they do not know the conditions. However,
21% of those who said they knew the conditions still
planned to use the first grant for livelihoods support,
6% to pay off loans and many others (12%) planned
to use it for other purposes.
Case Study 3.3: Common questions on and complaints about
the housing grant
These questions were raised at a public hearing
organized by Transparency International in
Sindhupalchowk in a village over two hours
drive from the district headquarters. Questions
were answered by the NRA representative
in Sindhupalchowk. Around 50-70 people
attended the program.
“I am rebuilding my house with a large loan [...]
but the government is not giving us the second
and third installments of cash grant. I have
to pay interest for my loan. The government
should immediately give us money or inform us
if they cannot give it. We are confused.â€
“There were mistakes in the CBS assessment.
People were left out because of the assessment
team’s mistakes, and problems with the tablets
and network. And now the grievances submitted
have not yet been addressed. When will they be
addressed?â€
“The first [INGO] engineer said that it is okay
to build two attached houses. So, brothers from
the same family built that way but later another
engineer said it’s not as per the building code
and they are not eligible for the second install-
ment. What will happen to this case now?â€
“It was said that we can use local resources for
rebuilding the house but now the engineers are
not approving houses made of stone. Why?â€
“Our one-floor house was cracked by the earth-
quake and the engineer asked us to rebuild the
house. But our name was not in the beneficiary
list. How can we build a new house? Why was
our name not included in the list?â€
“Multiple engineers came to see our house; one
said it is okay and the other says it is not. And
when we asked the VDC about the forms for
the second installment he said that engineer
will bring it and when we asked the engineers
they say the VDC office will provide the forms.
What is the truth?â€
“It is our house and we have surely made it
strong and safe. So, all the houses that have
already been rebuilt must be approved without
obstacles.â€
“Around 500 grievances forms were submitted
from Barabise VDC but we don’t know the
results. Will they be addressed or not?â€
“Why we are not getting the second installment?
Is the problem at the central or at district level?â€
“I called the engineers when I was about to start
rebuilding. But they didn’t show up. Now, I re-
built on my own. Will the house be approved?â€
41
Aid and the Housing Grants
Complaints
Grievance management committees mere
formed but inactive in most of the VDCs
visited in the qualitative research.
As reported in IRM-3, most complaints were collected
alongside the cash grant agreement process at the VDC
level but people could continue to file complaints after
the cash grant agreement process was completed. In
IRM-3 most complaint forms had yet to be dealt with
and there was often confusion at the local level on who
was responsible for processing them. By IRM-4, there
had been progress. According to official MoFALD data
released shortly after the research was conducted,
205,494 complaints had been filed of which 131,716
were cleared in May 2017.27 All registered complaints
were passed on to the NRA office rather than being
reviewed and resolved locally—although people
generally expressed a preference for complaints to be
reviewed locally.
Grievance management committees were formed in
VDCs visited but were inactive apart from in Barpak,
Gorkha. Complaints were filed at the VDC office, often
with the help of Social Mobilizers and WCF members,
and then sent to the DDC before being forwarded to
the NRA. The Barpak grievance management com-
mittee was the only local committee that was actively
reviewing and deciding on some of the submitted
grievance forms.28 The committee only forwarded 50
out of 76 grievances to the NRA, while all other VDCs
forwarded all grievance forms. However, the DDC later
asked the Barpak committee to also send the rest of
the forms and sent all of them to the NRA.
Grievance management committees at the district
level were equally inactive. It was expected, however,
that the committees would begin work after the local
elections when the process of re-verifying some of the
grievances that could not be addressed by the NRA
would begin. How precisely various local offices and
committees would coordinate to review complaints
remained unclear to local stakeholders involved.
Large numbers of complaints mere being
passed back to the districts for further ver-
ification or reassessment. In Gorkha and
Sindhupalchomk some complaints forms
mere lost.
In Gorkha, 15,903 complaints had been registered
at the time of research. Of these, 2,959 had been
approved and added to the beneficiary list, 5,162 were
rejected, and 6,959 would need further verification or
reassessment. More than 300 submitted complaints
were reportedly lost and the rest still needed to be
reviewed by the NRA. In Sindhupalchowk, 14,447
complaints had been registered by April 2017. Of
these, 2,964 submitted in 25 VDCs had been processed
and 565 were found ineligible as they had other livable
houses. Fifty-eight were found as eligible after further
review and 1,120 applications had no data or missing
or wrong information. Around 6,000 complaints
from 15 VDCs were reported misplaced or lost.29 In
Okhaldhunga, 8,019 complaints had been registered.30
Of these, 346 had been approved, 4,575 rejected, 1,581
needed further field verification or reassessment and
273 had missing or mismatching data.31
The process of verifying and reassessing those house-
holds whose complaints could not be addressed by the
NRA had not yet begun at the time of research.
Technical assistance
Despite improvements in access to technical
assistance since IRM-3, gaps remained:
several DUDBC engineer positions mere still
vacant and people in remote mards struggled
more to receive technical advice.
In IRM-3, DUDBC-deployed engineers were under-
occupied as most beneficiaries had yet to start
rebuilding. By IRM-4, the engineers had become
more involved and were more visibly present and
active in the VDCs visited where the cash grant had
been distributed. They were observed to be informing
citizens about the housing grant process and building
requirements and inspecting houses to determine
whether they qualified for further installments of
the grant. The engineers also processed application
forms for the second installment submitted by
beneficiaries who had completed the foundation of
27 http://www.mofald.gov.np/ne/node/ 2134.
28 See IRM-3 for more details on the Barpak grievance management
committee in which political parties were involved, going against
the guidelines.
29 ‘No data’ might mean that the application was lost since a
large number of applications (6,000) were reportedly lost in
Sindhupalchowk.
30 According to the CDO office, 8,019 complaints had been registered
but according to the DDC, only 7,810 complaints had been
registered.
31 These numbers were collected at the DDC at the time of research
in early April and confirmed with other key stakeholders at the
district level.
42
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Photo: Alok Pokharel
their houses. I/NGO deployed engineers were also
providing assistance some VDCs. Beneficiaries did not
receive technical assistance from student engineers
or the Nepal Army in any of the VDCs visited for the
qualitative research.
Yet, there were still shortages of engineers with many
DUDBC engineer positions at district and VDC level
remaining vacant. A high turnaround of engineers
was reported. It was frequently mentioned that one
or more engineers had resigned after receiving better
job offers elsewhere. It was also reported that people
in remote wards struggled more to bring the engineers
to inspect their house as the engineers did not visit
as regularly in remote settlements. A resident in a
remote ward of Katunje VDC said, “the technicians
do not visit the ward regularly. I have demanded the
VDC Secretary send the technicians to this ward on a
regular basis. What kind of job they are doing, if they
do not care about the houses built here?â€
32 The government-deployed engineers had previously protested
for better working conditions and higher pay. They had been
assured that their demands would be fulfilled but at the time of
the research this was not yet the case.
Government-deployed engineers faced a
variety of logistical challenges, which nega-
tively affected their work. Some were able to
overcome at least some of these and continue
to support communities by finding creative
solutions.
The DUDBC engineers struggled with various logistical
issues across districts, which made their work more
difficult and often reduced the effectiveness of their
assistance. Common challenges faced by engineers
included unclear instructions, frequent changes
in instructions from the NRA and DUDBC and in
approved housing designs, and insufficient training.
Delayed provision of inspection forms to engineers,
damaged tablets or cameras, limited internet access,
lack of material and travel support and work space,
having to work in difficult geographical terrain (the
engineers had to cover large areas on foot), political
pressures and low pay were also frequently listed as
difficulties faced by engineers.32 As a result of this
lack of clarity and the practical difficulties, engineers
struggled to follow instructions. Some developed
their own responses, for example by photocopying
forms locally, asking beneficiaries to submit their
own pictures of building progress (if tablets were
damaged), or taking extra measures to ensure the
43
Aid and the Housing Grants
houses would follow the approved designs. While such
initiatives were positive, it also meant that the work of
engineers was inconsistent and changes in procedures
often remained unrecorded.
Dissatisfaction with the quality of the as-
sistance provided, or the advice given, was
common. Satisfaction with engineers was
higher in VDCs where engineers were more
accessible.
Despite positive efforts by dedicated and proactive
engineers to serve communities as best as they could,
several complaints about the work of engineers were
raised. Many thought the engineers were not suffi-
ciently trained and lacked technical expertise. Some
said they were young, immature and inexperienced
or not motivated to do their work. Most commonly,
people complained that engineers were not available
or not able to give adequate advice when needed or
that the turnaround of engineers meant that people
often received different advice at different stages dur-
ing rebuilding if their house was not inspected by the
same engineer throughout. Some also thought that
the engineers only complained when something was
wrong rather than providing assistance throughout
the process of rebuilding: “The engineers are more the
complaining types,†said a key informant in Sindhupal-
chowk. “They do not provide assistance when people
begin construction; instead they only inspect houses
later and complain when something has gone wrong.â€
The limited monitoring of the engineers was also
mentioned as a concern. In Sindhupalchowk, district
level informants thought that due to the absence of
VDC Secretaries in some VDCs, the presence and work
of the engineers was not sufficiently monitored. How-
ever, even where present, VDC Secretaries sometimes
struggled to ensure that the engineers would provide
adequate assistance. This was due to the various logis-
tical challenges that engineers faced and their high
turnaround as well as due to a lack of willingness of
engineers to follow instructions from VDC Secretaries
who are lower-ranking officials compared to some of
the engineer positions.
In one VDC, concerns were raised that engineers
were provided food and accommodation in villages
they visited and that this might affect their ability to
remain objective. In two VDCs, it was also mentioned
that the engineers may be taking bribes or giving in to
local political pressures but this was difficult to verify.
People seemed more satisfied with the engineers in
places where they stayed in the village and therefore
were more easily accessible. Yet, in all VDCs, some
respondents thought that technical assistance arrived
too late and engineers should have been more present
and active during the early stages of rebuilding
to prevent mistakes in building techniques and
designs. This particularly applied to those who began
rebuilding before they received the first installment
of the cash grant.
Compliance with approved building designs
was reported to be low.
As the survey evidence presented earlier suggested,
compliance with the building requirements to receive
further installments of the housing grant was observed
to be low. Reasons were both the lack of awareness
about the requirements as well as deliberate violations
of the building codes because these were deemed too
expensive, impractical or too difficult to implement
due to lack of certain construction materials or the
lack of adequate technical assistance.
Many were hoping for more flexible building codes as
they found the NRA-approved housing models to be
culturally insensitive, impractical or too expensive.
Common complaints were the lack of storage space
and the specific needs of those with disabilities or
single women living alone not being considered.33
In Okhaldhunga, Rais and Limbus were reported to
prefer their traditional architecture as it was better
suited to their cultural sensibilities. In Barpak, Dalit
families said, “Traditional and wooden houses have
been completely ignored since the technicians have
given priority to concrete houses. But those houses
are expensive. What to do if one cannot afford it?â€
In Baruwa VDC, Sindhupalchowk, the Tamang com-
munity said they found the approved house models
unsuited to their needs and traditions. The engineers
stationed in the village explained that Tamang houses
traditionally have a large, long, single room on the
ground floor but that the building codes require two
rooms and also do not allow for the ground floor to be
larger than 12†x 12â€. Muyi Lama from the Baruwa VDC
said: “According to the building code we are supposed
to make a small house with two rooms. How can it be
sufficient? We need rooms for family members, for the
kitchen, for guests and for storing food. The guidelines
are very strict. We are investing our money but are not
allowed to build according to our needs and own ideas.
We want to make a strong house. We don’t want to die.
But the building should be made a bit more flexible.â€
Engineers generally agreed with local communities
that the approved building designs were not flexible
enough to be adapted to local needs.
In Barpak, local residents feared the loss of traditional
architecture. Before the earthquakes, Barpak used to
attract tourists as it was a beautiful traditional Gurung/
Ghale settlement with traditional houses with stone
33 Those with disabilities and single women generally preferred
to live in a one-room house rather than the two-room houses
proposed by the NRA.
44
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Case Study 3.4: Low compliance with approved building designs
Lalkaji’s house in Syaule VDC, Sindhupalchowk
was completely damaged during the first
earthquake. He started rebuilding his house
within days after the earthquake, employing 31
laborers to rebuild fast. He spent NPR 490,000
(NPR 250,000 of his own money, 170,000 of his
wife’s and 70,000 of his son’s money). When
the second earthquake struck he only had the
roof left to put up but his new house was also
damaged with major cracks in the wall. Lalkaji
said he had been in a hurry to rebuild so his ten
family members and small grandchildren would
not have to stay in small tents for very long.
Lalkaji said it was very difficult staying in tents
and temporary shelters. They feared for their
lives during storms. So, he started rebuilding
his house once again, taking a loan of NPR
650,000 from relatives. He used brick and
wood for his house. At the time, there were no
engineers or trained masons in the village and
no-one knew how to make earthquake-resilient
structures. When the engineers came after the
completion of his house, it was not approved
as earthquake-safe and eligible for the housing
cash grant. Lakaji said he received the first in-
stallment of the grant but fears he would have
to return it since his he was not found eligible
for government support. Lalkaji was frustrated
about the government’s late support during
reconstruction. “Where was the government
when I built my house?†He has no money
left to rebuild once again using the approved
building designs.
Many others in the VDC were found not eligible
for further installments of the housing grant as
they did not follow the building codes. People
started rebuilding their houses on their own, be-
fore government and technical support, because
they needed somewhere to keep their crops. In
their opinion, the reconstruction scheme and
information on building designs came much too
late. Now they were angered about not receiving
the full housing cash grant, which has left many
in debt and without the cash they had counted
on to repay their debts.
roofs. Tourists used to stay in traditional homestays.
But the traditional architecture is now likely to disap-
pear and residents feared this would mean a loss of
incomes from tourism in the long run. Few traditional
houses were being rebuilt in Barpak and there was
no uniformity in the way houses were being rebuilt.
Most built RCC (reinforced cement and concrete)
houses. “People think that RCC houses are stronger
than traditional ones ... This is threatening the beauty
and tradition of this place,†said a local leader. Some of
Barpak’s residents thought that the government should
have developed an integrated plan for rebuilding tra-
ditional settlements to ensure a more uniform look.
In several VDCs, people reported that they did not
have large enough land to implement the building
codes. This was particularly so in urban areas where
plots of land tend to be smaller and a new requirement
for houses’ distance from the road meant that less of
the available land could be built on. It was estimated
across VDCs visited that more than 20 percent
of beneficiaries would not quality for subsequent
installments of the housing grant. Yet, houses that
had failed the inspection process had not yet been
informed of this.
Retrofitting
Awareness of the retrofitting grant and ret-
rofitting options is low.
In the survey, people who were not declared eligible for
the NPR 300,000 grant were asked if they were aware
of the NPR 100,000 retrofitting grant as they might
be eligible for the retrofitting grant instead. Over half
said they were not aware (54%) of the program. Only
39% said they knew about the retrofitting grant. Dis-
tricts where people were most likely to be aware of the
program were Dhading (49%), Kathmandu (49%) and
Solukhumbu (42%). Those in less remote areas (43%)
were more likely than people in more remote (32%) and
remote (38%) areas to know of the retrofitting grant.
Most people said they had not been declared eligible
to receive the NPR 100,000 retrofitting grant (83%).
Forty percent thought they should have been eligible for
it, while 57% agreed they should not have been eligible.
45
Aid and the Housing Grants
In the qualitative research, it was found that very few
had heard of the retrofitting grant and those who had
did not know what it entailed. Key stakeholders, such
as VDC secretaries and engineers had also not yet
received any information on the retrofitting grant and
what options for retrofitting people would be given.
Coordination
A lack of clarity on the respective responsi-
bilities of different government bodies, coor-
dinating mechanisms and local NRA offices
continued to hinder effective coordination
between them and reduce efficiency.
As observed in IRM-3, different government line agen-
cies were involved in various aspects of earthquake
recovery, such as the DAO, DDC, DUDBC, District
Technical Office and District Education Department,
among others. Yet, there was little formal coordination
between these and with local NRA offices. Communi-
cation was ad-hoc and not always effective, with local
government officials at the VDC and district level
frequently complaining that their concerns remained
unaddressed.
HRRP district offices had become more active since
IRM-3 and were holding regular coordination meet-
ings to bring together different actors involved in re-
construction in Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk and Okhald-
hunga. Many said this had improved coordination, but
in Sindhupalchowk, a DUDBC representative thought
the HRRP was unnecessary and it would have been
more effective if the government had established an
effective coordination mechanism. The DCCs, which
were created by the government to coordinate and
monitor reconstruction efforts at the district level,
were not active and did not take a coordinating role.
Dissatisfaction with the roles of and coordina-
tion with the NRA persisted at the local level.
Local government officials and several other civil soci-
ety stakeholders continued to argue that the NRA was
unnecessary, especially at the local level, and that its
work could have been implemented through already
established offices and government line agencies. They
still thought that the establishment of the NRA had ac-
tually hindered reconstruction as it delayed their work
and introduced another layer of bureaucracy. With 1/
NGOs coordinating with government line agencies and
the NRA having little authority over line agencies, it
had proved difficult for local NRA offices to coordinate
all actors involved in the districts. Local government
officials frequently complained that the NRA was too
slow to respond to their questions and suggestions
with local NRA offices being understaffed and having
to refer to the central office on most matters. Most
often they complained about the slow distribution of
application forms for the second installment and the
delayed provision of the second installment as well as
a lack of clear and timely instructions from the center
and the NRA on changes to the housing grant program.
46
Photo: Chiran Manandhar
4.1 Borrowing
Rates of borrowing
The number of people borrowing continues to
rise. Increases have been more sharp in more
affected and more remote areas.
Two years after the disaster, borrowing continues to
increase in earthquake-affected districts. In the im-
mediate aftermath of the earthquakes, 14% of people
borrowed money. Thirty-two percent took loans in
IRM-2 and the rate stayed the same in IRM-3. The
amount of people borrowing has grown further in
the past eight months with 44% having taken loans
in this period.
The number of people borrowing has generally
increased most sharply in more affected districts
(Table 4.1).34 35 Fifty-five percent of people have bor-
rowed in the last eight months in the severely hit
districts, compared to 24% in the early months after
the earthquake. Borrowing is now particularly high in
the severely hit districts of Dhading and Ramechhap
as well as the crisis hit district of Okhaldhunga, where
72% of people have taken loans in IRM-4. Borrowing
is least common in Lamjung district.
Table 4.1: Share of people who have borrowed - by district impact and district
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)35
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Severely hit 24% 49% 43% 55%
Dhading 25% 52% 48% 64%
Gorkha 17% 45% 36% 52%
34 It has also increased in Syangja, the least affected district. It is
unclear why this is the case.
35 The time period covered in this survey question differs slightly for
each survey round. Respondents were asked if they had borrowed
since the earthquake in IRM-1, since the beginning of last
monsoon in IRM-2 (June 2015-February 2016), since the end of
winter season in IRM-3 (March 2016-September 2016) and since
the end of last monsoon in IRM-4 (September 2016-April 2017).
47
Coping Strategies
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Nuwakot 14% 43% 34% 54%
Ramechhap 40% 63% 59% 55%
Sindhupalchowk 30% 46% 42% 49%
Crisis hit 11% 22% 25% 39%
Bhaktapur 11% 22% 14% 40%
Kathmandu 9% 19% 23% 36%
Okhaldhunga 30% 66% 66% 72%
Hit with heavy losses 10% 24% 24% 21%
Lamjung 7% 21% 23% 18%
Solukhumbu 15% 29% 26% 27%
Hit 4% 43% 45% 51%
Syangja 4% 43% 45% 51%
All districts 14% 32% 32% 44%
A larger proportion of people in more remote areas 47% of people in remote areas and 55% in more remote
are borrowing than elsewhere. As shown in Figure 4.1, areas borrowed in IRM-4.
Figure 4.1: Share of people who have borrowed - by remoteness (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) | Sep 2016 (IRM-3)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
The average amount people borrowed has
increased over time and continues to be
highest in crisis hit districts.
As shown in Table 4.2, IRM-4 borrowers on average
took loans of NPR 363,193, the highest level since the
earthquake and a threefold increase since IRM-1. Loan
sizes in IRM-4 continue to be the highest in the crisis
hit districts, driven mainly by the two urban districts
of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur. Among the severely hit
districts, the biggest increases in sums borrowed since
IRM-3 have been in Gorkha. Ramechhap and Lamjung
are the two districts where there has been a decline in
the average amount borrowed.
Debt loads are also increasing for a substantial
share of the population. Increases in debt are
more common for people who sustained more
earthquake impact and in remote areas.
According to IRM-4, overall debt has increased for
47% of the people who took loans since the last mon-
soon (September 2016). Overall debt has decreased
for just 11% of the population who borrowed in the
past eight months. Report of increasing debt are more
widespread in higher impact districts. Among those
who have taken a loan, 53% in severely hit districts say
that their overall debt has increased since IRM-3, com-
pared to 46% in crisis hit, 28% in hit with heavy losses
48
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
and 37% in hit districts. The two districts where debt
increases are most common are Okhaldhunga (62%)
and Dhading (70%). Debt appears to be increasing
for more people in more remote areas (53%) than in
remote (51%) or less remote areas (41%).
Debt is increasing for 52% of those whose house was
completely destroyed, while it is for 40% of those
whose house saw major damage and for 45% of people
with minor damage to their houses. It is noteworthy
that 33% of those without any house damage have
increasing overall debt, which suggests that rising
debt is a common problem but that it is aggravated
by the earthquake.
Table 4.2: Average borrowing in NPR - by district impact and district
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Severely hit 45,289 262,343 155,094 226,831
Dhading 54,719 645,171 172,533 234,771
Gorkha 53,910 149,389 152,641 255,675
Nuwakot 38,668 153,974 176,446 240,065
Ramechhap 44,811 118,267 121,906 199,719
Sindhupalchowk 34,859 111,245 150,104 192,695
Crisis hit 185,747 408,363 300,829 500,608
Bhaktapur 66,671 213,744 573,812 572,795
Kathmandu 243,843 531,259 324,193 543,756
Okhaldhunga 49,740 97,622 110,859 139,190
Hit with heavy losses 99,799 186,422 216,281 235,990
Lamjung 62,071 228,662 305,088 276,843
Solukhumbu 130,514 131,100 75,000 188,542
Hit 34,375 167,021 194,430 281,581
Syangja 34,375 167,021 194,430 281,581
All districts 103,057 303,130 213,451 363,193
The rise in overall volume of debt is more
likely among high caste and middle income
groups.
Half of the high caste group who have borrowed say
that their overall debt is increasing, compared to
46% of Janajatis and 37% of low caste people who
have taken loans since IRM-3 (Table 4.3). When
disaggregating by pre-earthquake income, the highest
share of people whose overall debt has increased are
those with a medium level of income.
Table 4.3: Overall debt - by caste and pre-earthquake income (IRM-4, weighted)
Increased No change Decreased Don’t know/ refused
High caste 50% 39% 10% 1%
Caste Janajati 46% 41% 12% 1%
Low caste 37% 45% 16% 1%
Pre-earthquake income Low 47% 41% 12% 1%
Medium 51% 38% 10% 1%
High 47% 37% 14% 2%
49
Coping Strategies
Sources of credit
Credit is being provided by both formal and
informal sources. However, informal sources
are more common for people living in more
remote areas.
Cooperatives continue to be the most common source
of borrowing (27% of borrowers took loans from
cooperatives) - Table 4.4. Other common borrowing
sources in IRM-4 are relatives (19%), neighbors (17%)
and savings and credit groups (17%). Borrowing
from relatives, which was the most common source
immediately after the earthquake in IRM-1 (31%),
became less common in IRM-2 and IRM-3, but has
increased by 6 points since IRM-3. Borrowing from
banks has stayed constant at 13% since IRM-2.
Table 4.4: Sources of borrowing among those who borrowed (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Moneylender 13% 10% 12% 11%
Friend 12% 9% 7% 12%
Relative 31% 24% 13% 19%
Neighbor 18% 17% 19% 17%
Other individuals 1% 2% 1% 1%
Bank 2% 13% 13% 13%
Savings and credit group 17% 18% 20% 17%
Cooperatives 7% 15% 23% 27%
Other financial institutions 1% 5% 2% 2%
People in more remote regions in IRM-4 borrowed
largely from informal sources. Those who borrow in
less remote regions are 16 percentage points more
likely to borrow from formal sources than those in
remote areas and 43 points more likely than those
in more remote areas. In contrast, informal sources
become more important as remoteness increases.
In more remote areas, borrowers are 44 percentage
points more likely to borrow from informal sources
than in less remote areas.
There was a sharp increase in the amount
borrowedfrom mostformal sources while the
informal ones saw a slight rise.
The average amount borrowed from banks increased
from NPR 488,050 in IRM-3 to NPR 748,105 in IRM-
4. Similarly, the average amount borrowed in IRM-4
from cooperatives and other financial institutions has
doubled since IRM-3 (Table 4.5). Borrowing from
friends and savings and credit groups has declined
since IRM-3. Worryingly, average sums borrowed
from moneylenders have substantially increased.
Table 4.5: Average borrowing in NPR - by sources (IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Moneylender 66,009 763,730 107,966 183,618
Friend 55,080 99,064 462,343 210,138
Relative 156,562 102,836 208,144 217,525
Neighbor 123,576 103,889 103,631 148,955
Other individual from ward 24,534 97,546 154,018 165,779
Bank 87,196 887,654 488,050 748,105
Savings and credit group 53,888 109,503 98,616 92,985
Co-operatives 65,396 161,435 212,858 485,275
Other financial institution 11,522 130,528 48,458 119,346
Government loan scheme 12,696
50
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Loans are primarily taken from informal
sources such as moneylenders or family and
acquaintances due to the lack of accessible
formal sources.
The reasons for borrowing from informal sources have
not changed from IRM-3; they included accessibility,
convenience and repayment considerations.36 Data
from the qualitative field research show that there
is a lack of accessible finance institutions in most
earthquake-affected areas, including in Gorkha,
Okhaldhunga and Sindhupalchowk. In six wards,
‘most’ borrowing took place from moneylenders or
acquaintances, while ‘many’ households in 13 other
wards borrowed from these sources. Cooperatives
lend at rates lower than moneylenders. But as they
are membership-based, only those who are members
have access to these funds.
Average monthly interest rates have remained
largely steady since the earthquake.
In IRM-4, interest rates charged by banks, savings and
credit cooperatives and other financial institutions are
1.7-1.8 percent. For informal sources, monthly interest
rates range from 1.9-2.3 percent. People in more
remote regions are depending on informal sources
despite the higher interest rates. Higher interest rates
are prevalent in higher impact districts, although
the less affected Lamjung and Syangja districts are
exceptions. Ramechhap (32%) and Sindhupalchowk
(31%) have the highest shares of people who say they
are charged more than 2% interest per month.
Who has borrowed?
As in previous surveys, those who had a low
income before the earthquake and individ-
uals of low caste are more likely to borrow
than others. Borrowing in IRM-4 has also
increased among people with disabilities.
Those who had a low income before the earthquake are
more likely to have borrowed since the earthquakes
than others. There has been a steady increase in the
share of low income people who are borrowing over
time - from 35% in IRM-2 to 40% in IRM-3 to 52%
in IRM-4 (Figure 4.2). Borrowing for those who had
a medium or high income has also increased but still
lags behind borrowing by the poor.
Figure 4.2: Share of people who have borrowed - by pre-earthquake income
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Compared to previous surveys, borrowing in IRM-4
has increased for all caste groups. But as in the past,
a higher share of people of low caste are taking loans.
36 IRM-3 qualitative report.
The proportion of high caste and low caste people who
borrowed in IRM-4 has increased by 16 percentage
points since IRM-3 while the proportion of Janajatis
borrowing has increased by 9 points. However, while
49% of those in the high caste group and 39% of
Janajatis are borrowing in IRM-4, nearly 62% in the
low caste say that they borrowed since the last survey.
51
Coping Strategies
There has been a steady increase in borrowing by
people with disabilities. Borrowing among people with
disabilities was slightly less frequent than borrowing
by others in IRM-2 and IRM-3. However, in IRM-4 the
proportion of the disabled who are taking loans sur-
passed those without disability by 6 percentage points.
People who sustained greater damage to their
house and those who live in temporary shelters
on other’s land are also more likely to borrow.
As in earlier surveys, people whose houses were fully
damaged are the most likely to borrow (Figure 4.3). There
has been a sharp increase in the share of people whose
house was destroyed who are borrowing with 52% taking
loans in the last eight months, a 13 percentage point in-
crease since IRM-3. Borrowing has also risen sharply for
those whose house experienced minor damage.
Those who still live in temporary shelters are the most
likely to borrow although borrowing has increased
for those in all types of accommodation (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.3: Share of people who have borrowed - by housing damage (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Figure 4.4: Share of people who have borrowed - by where people live (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
52
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Photo: Chiran Manandhar
Borrowing needs
Supporting livelihood remains the most com-
mon reason for borrowing. Borrowing for
reconstruction has become more important
in the past eight months and correlates with
levels of earthquake impact.
The most common reason for borrowing is to support
livelihoods (60% of those who borrowed in IRM-4, an
increase from 58% in IRM-3). The next most common
reason is for people to rebuild their house (Figure 4.5).
There has been a sharp increase in borrowing for
housing reconstruction since IRM-3 but the share of
borrowers who took loans for this purpose is still lower
than in March 2016. The decline in the share of people
borrowing for food, for their business or for temporary
shelter continues.
Figure 4.5: Reasons for borrowing, share of those borrowing (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
53
Coping Strategies
Case Study 4.1: Taking loans to rebuild houses
Across districts, many earthquake-affected
households were relying on loans and sending
members to work abroad in order to finance
the construction of their houses as the housing
reconstruction cash grant did not cover the
whole costs of rebuilding. With many potentially
ineligible for the second and third installments
of the housing grant, this leaves many uncertain
about how to repay their loans.
Man Bahadur Tamang from Katunje VDC in
Okhaldhunga who rebuilt quickly without
waiting for the housing grant (Case Study 3.2)
said, “I ran into debt to make this house. I had
to spend almost NPR 500,000 for this two room
house and I have only received NPR 50,000
from the government so I had to borrow money
to manage expenses to build this house.†Below
are the details of the money he used to finance
the house:
• NPR 100,000 borrowed from daughter
• NPR 45,000 borrowed from friend
• NPR 100,000 borrowed from friend
• NPR 100,000 remittances from elder son
who was working in India
• NPR 100,000 remittances from younger
son who was working in India
Total expenses: NPR 445,000
Lalkaji Tamang from Syaule VDC in Sindhupal-
chowk also had to take loans to rebuild; he bor-
rowed NPR 650,000 from relatives to build his
new house. He started building before the grant
was distributed by the government and before
technical assistance was provided. He had to
pay 3 percent interest to his relatives. When he
saw no way to pay back his loan when he was
declared ineligible for further installments of
the housing grant, his 24-years-old son and
his daughter-in-law went abroad to Malaysia
and Saudi Arabia to earn money. However, to
send them aboard Lalkaji had to take additional
loans of NPR 400,000. The money sent by his
son and daughter-in-law is only sufficient to pay
interest on the loans.
According to the CDO’s office in Sindhupalchowk,
the number of people going abroad increased
after earthquakes primarily to earn money to
pay back their loans.
Borrowing for reconstruction associates well with
earthquake impact levels. Compared to only 8% of
borrowers in the hit district, 33% in severely hit dis-
tricts, 23% in crisis hit ones and 33% in hit with heavy
losses districts say that they borrowed money for re-
building. People who have suffered a higher level of
damage to their house are also more likely to borrow
for rebuilding when they take loans. Those whose
house was completely destroyed are 6 percentage
points more likely than those with major damage to
borrow for rebuilding, and nearly three times more
likely compared to people with minor or no damage
to their houses. Data from the areas covered by the
qualitative research also suggest that almost everyone
who has rebuilt has taken loans.
The share of people who plan to borrow in
the next three months continues to rise, with
severely hit districts seeing a big increase.
Despite increasing debt loads, the number of people
who plan to borrow is increasing. Thirty-five percent
of people in IRM-4 plan to borrow in the next three
months, compared to 28% in IRM-3 and 27% in IRM-
2. More people in the higher impact districts intend
to borrow than was the case before. This trend was
also found in IRM-3.37 However, the difference in bor-
rowing intentions is widening between people living
in severely hit districts and those in other districts.
Whereas 45% of people in severely hit districts plan
to borrow, only 19% in crisis hit districts, 17% in hit
with heavy losses districts and 10% in the hit district
intend to borrow in next three months (Table 4.6).
Ramechhap continues to be the district where the
largest share of people (65%) plan to borrow.
37IRM-3 quantitative report, p. 62.
54
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Table 4.6: Share of people who plan to borrow
in the next three months - by district impact and
district (IRM-4, weighted)
Yes No Refused Don’t know
Severely hit 45% 48% 0% 7%
Dhading 54% 35% 0% 10%
Gorkha 33% 60% 0% 7%
Nuwakot 41% 55% 0% 4%
Ramechhap 65% 32% 0% 3%
Sindhupalchowk 40% 53% 1% 7%
Crisis hit 19% 69% 0% 11%
Bhaktapur 24% 62% 0% 14%
Kathmandu 17% 73% 0% 11%
Okhaldhunga 43% 43% 0% 14%
Hit with heavy losses 17% 44% 0% 39%
Lamjung 21% 57% 0% 22%
Solukhumbu 11% 23% 1% 66%
Hit 10% 67% 1% 22%
Syangja 10% 67% 1% 22%
Intention to borrow is associated with re-
moteness, earthquake impact on housing and
disability.
More people in remote and more remote areas plan
to borrow compared to people in less remote areas.
Thirty-four percent of people in remote and more
remote areas planned to borrow, 15 percentage points
more than those in less remote areas. As shown in
Figure 4.6, intention to borrow is stronger among
people with a disability and those who have suffered
greater damage to their houses. The difference by
gender is very small.
Low income and low caste people are more
likely to plan to borrow.
Thirty-seven percent of individuals in the low income
group plan to borrow. This is 11 percentage points
more than those in the medium income group, and
almost twice as likely than those with a higher income.
Low caste people are 2 and 3 percentage points more
likely than high caste people and Janajatis to say they
will borrow in the next three months.
Figure 4.6: Share of people who intend to borrow in the next three months - by gender,
widows, disability and housing damage (IRM-4, weighted)
As the sums required for reconstruction are
much larger, the risk of debt traps increases.
The qualitative research found widespread concerns
of people that they may fall into debt traps. Sunita
Shrestha, President of the King Village Saving Co-
operative in Syaule VDC, Sindhupalchowk said, “we
have a savings and credit group formed by 20 women,
of which 17 have taken a loan from the group. Most
of them are for house reconstruction. Before the
earthquake, people would borrow a small amount for
household purposes, but now it is much more larger.â€
If households are borrowing because they cannot af-
ford to rebuild with their incomes, it is unlikely that
they will have the funds to repay loans, leading to a
high risk of debt traps. This is particularly an issue for
marginalized Dalits who often have little or no valued
assets. For example, in Nele VDC, Solukhumbu, Dalit
families reported that they borrowed anywhere from
NPR 300,000 to NPR 500,000. Many families fear a
long and vicious cycle of debt burden.
55
Coping Strategies
Frequent borrowing
More frequent borrowing appears to have
increased overall debt.
Overall, there are 56% of people who are intermittent
borrowers, having borrowed once or twice in IRM-2,
IRM-3 and IRM-4, and 20% who have borrowed in all
three time periods. Those who borrowed in all three
time periods covered in the last three surveys are 14
percentage points more likely to report increased debt
compared to those who have borrowed intermittently
(Table 4.7). This suggests that people are currently not
able to pay off loans they have taken.
Table 4.7: Overall debt - by borrowing frequency (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, unweighted)
Increased No change Decreased Don’t know/ refused
Borrowing frequency Intermittent borrowing 49% 38% 12% 1%
Borrowed in all 3 rounds 63% 24% 12% 0%
Did not borrow during last 3 rounds 8% 73% 8% 10%
People with more housing damage and lower
pre-earthquake income are more likely to
become frequent borrowers.
People who have sustained more damage to their
house are more likely to borrow regularly. As shown
in Table 4.8, people with completely destroyed houses
are 8 percentage points more likely to borrow in all
three rounds of surveys than those who suffered major
or minor damage to their house, and almost three
times as likely to borrow in all three rounds as those
whose house was not damaged.
Table 4.8: Borrowing frequency - by housing damage (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, unweighted)
Intermittent borrowing Regular borrowing Did not borrow during last 3 rounds
Completely destroyed 56% 23% 20%
Major damage 58% 15% 27%
Minor damage 52% 15% 33%
No damage 45% 8% 47%
Don’t know 67% 0% 33%
*Note: Intermittent borrowing: borrowed once or twice in IRM-2/IRM-3/IRM-4.
Regular borrowers: Borrowed in all three surveys.
People with low pre-earthquake income levels are
more likely to be borrow in all three research periods
(23%). They are 5 percentage points more likely than
those in the medium income group, and 8 points more
likely than high income individuals, to be regular
borrowers. This trend was first reported in IRM-3
report,38 but the evidence presented here is stronger
and it confirms the ongoing trend of the poorer having
to borrowing increasingly frequently. It suggests that
low income individuals who have borrowed are the
most vulnerable of falling into a debt trap.
Those living in more affected districts and
those in more remote areas are more likely
to borrow repeatedly.
As shown in Table 4.9, larger shares of people in se-
verely (21%) and crisis hit (27%) districts are borrow-
ing repeatedly, compared to hit with heavy losses (3%)
and hit (19%) districts. Okhaldhunga has the highest
share of people (46%) who have borrowed in all three
rounds of the survey.39 People in more remote areas
are 5 percentage points more likely to borrow regularly
than those in remote areas, and twice as likely to bor-
row regularly compared to those in less remote areas.
38 IRM-3 quantitative report, p. 60.
39 Okhaldhunga has third highest number of more remote areas after
Solukhumbu and Gorkha. It has the highest level of poverty (80%
mention they are in the low income category).
56
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Table 4.9: Borrowing frequency - by district impact, district and remoteness
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 panel, unweighted)
Intermittent borrowing Borrowed in all 3 rounds Did not borrow during last 3 rounds
Severely hit 59% 21% 20%
Dhading 62% 24% 14%
Gorkha 57% 17% 26%
Nuwakot 64% 15% 22%
Ramechhap 61% 28% 12%
Sindhupalchowk 56% 19% 26%
Crisis hit 47% 27% 26%
Bhaktapur 50% 5% 46%
Kathmandu 54% 6% 40%
Okhaldhunga 43% 46% 11%
Hit with heavy losses 52% 3% 45%
Solukhumbu 57% 3% 40%
Lamjung 49% 3% 48%
Hit 56% 19% 25%
Syangja 56% 19% 25%
Less remote 57% 12% 31%
Remote 55% 21% 24%
More remote 55% 26% 19%
Unsuccessfill borrowing has increased slight-
ly especially people in higher impact districts.
Compared to only 4% of people in IRM-2 who were
unsuccessful in borrowing, 6% of people in IRM-4
tried to borrow but were unsuccessful. More people
in severely and crisis hit districts are unsuccessful
compared to those in the bottom two categories of
earthquake impact. This may suggest a higher demand
for capital in higher impact districts to cope with the
disaster effect. Borrowing success does not associate
well with remoteness
Unsuccessfill borrowing is increasing among
people of higher caste and higher income.
More higher caste people were unsuccessful borrowers
in IRM-4 (8%) than is the case for low caste people
(6%) or Janajatis (5%). Across surveys and over time,
the proportion of borrowers who are unsuccessful
is increasing for those of high caste and Janajatis
(Figure 4.7). People in the low and high income group
are increasingly likely to be unsuccessful, although
the margin is much higher for the high income group.
Figure 4.7: Unsuccessful borrowers - by caste and pre-earthquake income
(IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
57
Coping Strategies
Photo: Chiran Manandhar
4.2 Sale of assets
Sales of assets have increased and are the
most frequent in more affected districts.
While only 4% of people said they sold assets in IRM-2,
and 3% in IRM-3, 6% now report having sold assets in
the last eight months (Figure 4.8). This rise in asset
sales is largely in the crisis hit districts. Sales of assets
remain highest in the severely hit districts.40
Figure 4.8: Share of people who sold assets to cope with the earthquake impacts -
by district impact (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, weighted)
Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) H Sep 2016 (IRM-3) H Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Borrowing frequency and where people live correlates
with the likelihood of asset sales. Those who have
borrowed repeatedly since February 2016 (IRM-2)
are more than twice as likely as those who have not
borrowed in any of the three waves to sell assets to
cope with earthquake impacts. They are 3 percentage
points more likely than those who have borrowed
intermittently. While 6% of people living in their own
houses sold assets in IRM-4, 9% living in shelters on
their own land and 8% living in shelters on others’
land sold assets to cope with the disaster.
40 District level analysis does not provide robust results because of
the small proportions.
58
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Case Study 4.2: Household reconstruction through labor
migration in Baruwa VDC, Sindhupalchowk
Sanumaya Tamang was 15 when the earthquake
struck, and she was studying in the sixth grade
at school. Fears of tremors after the earthquake
led her to leave school and Baruwa. She lived in
Kathmandu for a year, and learnt carpet weav-
ing. She returned to the village after a year but
did not go back to school as it had already been
over a year. Instead she started weaving carpets,
earning NPR 12,000 per pair. Sanumaya plans
to go abroad to work. Her elder sister was also
in Dubai before, returning recently. Now, Sanu-
maya desperately wants to go abroad to earn
money to support her family. Her house has
not yet been rebuilt and her family is not in the
beneficiary list. Sanumaya said, “if we will not
get money from the government then I will go
abroad and send money to rebuild the house.â€â€
Shukman Syangbo Tamang adds, “I could not
rebuild my house staying in Nepal so I am plan-
ning to go abroad. I was in Malaysia, but I came
back after 11 months because I lost my mother
and other relatives in the earthquake. I still have
to repay NPR 100,000 taken to migrate then.â€
Seasonal migration to Ladakh in India is a com-
mon phenomenon, where locals from Baruwa
work for six months a year. Ram Bahadur Lop-
chan said, “I took a loan from relatives to rebuild
the house. I do not like to take a loan from the
bank. If I cannot repay the loan from the bank, I
will lose my house again. So, I’m planning to go
to Ladakh to repay the loan I’ve taken.â€
More people have identified remittance as
main source of income especially among those
living in remote areas and those with high
pre-earthquake income.
Fifteen percent of people in affected areas say re-
mittances were one of their main income sources in
IRM-4, compared to 9% in IRM-1. However, remit-
tances still tend to be more important in less affected
districts. They are most important for people in remote
areas and have also increased sharply in such areas.
Remittances are more important as an income source
for those with a high pre-earthquake income and have
grown in importance most for this group. Level of
housing damage does not have a strong effect on the
likelihood that people say remittances are an impor-
tant income source.
Migration remains more or less the same and
most who plan for out migration tend to be
from high impact districts.
Overall, 65% of people say migration levels have re-
mained the same, 20% say they have decreased and
4% say levels have decreased. There is no clear pat-
tern in reported migration by the level of earthquake
impact. Only 3% said that they, or someone in their
family, planned to migrate in the next year. A majority
4.3 Remittances and migration
of those who have a plan to migrate are from severely
hit districts (61%) or crisis hit ones (28%). A higher
proportion of people from remote and less remote
areas plan to migrate abroad, but a majority of people
in more remote areas who plan to migrate in the next
12 months plan to migrate within the country. There
is no consistent relationship between income level,
earthquake impact or level of debt and where people
want to migrate to.
Some have moved to work abroad in order to
help their family pay for rebuilding or repay
loans while some have stayed as daily wages
for construction have risen.
According to a local NGO in Sindhupalchowk, 70% of
people who were migrating explain that their motive in
going abroad is to earn money to rebuild their homes
and pay off loans. Labor migrants explain that is im-
possible to rebuild without extra earnings and agricul-
tural production is merely sufficient for six months.
In contrast, in Barpak VDC, the incidence of labor
migration has slightly decreased as locals are working
for wage labor and earning well. Around 10 to 15
people had returned to Barpak after the earthquake
and were working in housing reconstruction and some
who were planning to go abroad have postponed their
59
Coping Strategies
plans due to the labor opportunities. However, it is
likely that labor migration will increase in Barpak once
reconstruction work opportunities decrease. Some
respondents stated that they will need to work abroad
in order to repay their loans.
60
Photo: Nayan Pokharel
The limited room for formal engagement
of political parties in the recovery and
reconstruction processes at the local level
continues to hold true in IRM-4.
As reported in IRM-3, new policies and guidelines,
issued after the establishment of the NRA in early 2016,
either explicitly prohibit political party involvement in
reconstruction at the local level or do not mention
political parties.41 * * * * * 41 Political parties had not carried
out any earthquake-related activities since IRM-3 in
any of the wards, VDCs or districts visited during the
qualitative research.
The informal roles of political parties in
relation to the recovery and reconstruction
process have also declined, partly due to them
no longer being needed.
5.1 Roles of political parties
in the provision of aid
The informal roles of political parties that were report-
ed in IRM-3,42 were not observed during IRM-4. These
roles had included providing logistical assistance in
the reconstruction cash grant agreement process, in-
formation dissemination, leading protests on behalf
of community members not satisfied with the CBS
damage assessment, and settling disputes between
community members and local officials.
In IRM-3, political parties were actively engaged in
facilitating agreements between protesting community
members who were not included in the beneficiary lists
and district officials. However, qualitative field data
from IRM-4 does not show any effort on the part of
political parties to follow up on the agreements that
they had facilitated during IRM-3. In Solukhumbu,
where beneficiary agreement process had just begun
during the field visit, the data indicate that political
parties were not involved in the CBS assessment
41 IRM-3 qualitative report, p. 33. The reconstruction process
is governed by the Procedure for the Reconstruction Grant
Distribution for Private Houses Damaged by Earthquake 2016
(http://nra.gov.np/uploads/docs/EunALRqKz416o52oo626o2.
pdf); Reconstruction of Structure Damaged by Earthquake
Rules 2016 (available at: http://nra.gov.np/uploads/docs/
ccy9p7aMe7160424102050.pdf); The Procedures Relating to
Grievances Management with Regard to Reconstruction and
Restitution 2016 (available at: http://nra.gov.np/download/
details/132) and Procedure for the Technical Supervision of the
Reconstruction of Private Houses 2016 (available at: http://nra.
gov.np/uploads/docs/KSddafxXzpi6imo653o8.pdf). None of
the procedures, rules and guidelines describe official roles for
political parties and their local representatives.
42 IRM-3 qualitative report, pp.32-33, pp. 38-40.
61
Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict
process. A decline in the informal roles of political
parties is partly due to limited aid distribution in
communities, the slow progress in distributing the
reconstruction cash grant since IRM-3, and the
announcement of local elections.
The restructuring of local government units
and the announcement of local elections
increased political activities.
Compared to IRM-3, the presence of local political par-
ties and their activities were found to have increased
during IRM-4. The increase in political activities was
primarily due to the restructuring of local government
units and the announcement of local elections (see
below). In all VDCs but one visited in the qualitative
research (Barpak VDC in Gorkha), political party
activities were reported. Parties held regular internal
meetings, reorganized local party units and began
preparations for local elections. In Baruneshwor VDC
in Okhaldhunga parties organized protests against the
restructuring of local units.
Increased activities did not mean that parties
were working on reconstruction issues or
able to affect the recovery and reconstruction
process.
There were only two cases found where political par-
ties were working on reconstruction. In Baruwa VDC
in Sindhupalchowk the CPN-UML claimed that it was
lobbying for a “new program†that would increase the
amount of the reconstruction cash grant; in Dhuwakot
VDC in Gorkha a local leader claimed that political
parties regularly raise issues concerning earthquake
victims at the district headquarters. However, in
general, no political party claimed that they were
engaged in or were planning to focus on recovery and
reconstruction activities.
No incidents of protest or political interference were
reported in the distribution of the reconstruction cash
grant or in the work of NGOs since IRM-3. This can
probably be attributed to the limited reconstruction
cash grant distribution in Gorkha, Okhaldhunga and
Sindhupalchowk and the absence of beneficiary agree-
ments in Solukhumbu. The protests that did take place
in the VDCs and wards visited for the field study were
all in response to the decision taken in Kathmandu
to restructure local government units (see below).
In Baruneshwor VDC, for example, political parties
organized a protest against local level restructuring
of the VDC. However, the protest did not affect the
recovery and reconstruction process in the VDC.
The District Coordination Committees (DCC),43
formed under the NRA and which involve local pol-
iticians, have become even less active since IRM-3.
Researchers could not find any evidence of DCC meet-
ings being held since IRM-3 in three districts (Gorkha,
Okhaldhunga and Sindhupalchowk) where DCCs had
been established earlier. In Solukhumbu, a DCC was
yet to be established. A government official felt that the
inactivity of the DCC was due to the limited authority
given to DCCs.
Political parties and local government offi-
cials continued to work with each other and
relied on each other to make decisions affect-
ing local governance.
Political parties continued their customary influence
on the local administration and decision-making
processes concerning local development, the budget
allocation and other activities, but not on issues relating
to post-earthquake recovery and reconstruction.
Furthermore, there was no indication of conflict or
a lack of cooperation from political parties in the
administration of local governance in the VDCs visited
during the qualitative research.
Satisfaction with political parties
People continue to remain disappointed
with political parties regarding their post-
earthquake role.
Although, community members regularly raised their
concerns with local political parties and their repre-
sentatives with regard to the CBS damage assessment
results and procedural hurdles in accessing the re-
construction cash grant, dissatisfaction with the role
of political parties in assisting recovery remains high.
According to the quantitative survey, 59% of people
in all affected districts expressed dissatisfaction with
local political parties’ assistance with disaster relief
43 According to the NRA’s Post-Disaster Recovery Framework
(PDRF), in each of the 31 earthquake-affected districts a District
Coordination Committee (DCC) (not to be confused with the
District Coordination Committee, formerly known as District
Development Committee, which is responsible for overall
development activities and local governance in a district) was to be
established to coordinate and monitor reconstruction in districts.
The DCC includes district officials and Members of Parliament
from the concerned district and is led by a Member of Parliament
on a rotational basis, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/
files/resources/PDRF% 2oReport_FINALioMay.pdf
62
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
since August 2016 (Table 5.1). People in the hit with
heavy losses districts were the most likely to be satis-
fied with local political parties (42%), while those in
crisis hit districts were the most likely to be dissatisfied
(66%). Respondents in Sindhupalchowk and Kath-
mandu expressed the highest level of dissatisfaction
with political parties. People in less remote regions
were 20 percentage points more likely to be dissatis-
fied than those in more remote regions. Groups that
are generally considered more privileged because of
their socio-economic status expressed higher levels of
dissatisfaction with local political parties.
Table 5.1: Satisfaction with local political parties since the last monsoon - by district impact
and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Satisfied Not satisfied Don’t know/refused
Severely hit 28% 49% 23%
Dhading 28% 43% 29%
Gorkha 37% 42% 21%
Nuwakot 23% 50% 26%
Ramechhap 31% 40% 29%
Sindhupalchowk 21% 69% 10%
Crisis hit 19% 66% 15%
Bhaktapur 34% 59% 7%
Kathmandu 15% 69% 15%
Okhaldhunga 34% 43% 23%
Hit with heavy losses 42% 55% 2%
Lamjung 43% 56% 1%
Solukhumbu 41% 55% 4%
Hit 11% 51% 39%
Syangja 11% 51% 39%
All districts 23% 59% 20%
Among 233 community members that were inter-
viewed during the qualitative field research, 162 were
dissatisfied with political parties in some way. Only
44 community members said that they were satisfied
or somewhat satisfied with political parties. The field
data from Barpak VDC suggests that the displaced
and Dalit populations, in particular, were not happy
with the role of political parties since the earthquake.
People’s perceptions of whether aid was dis-
tributed fairly by VDC/municipality appear
to have a strong influence on how satisfied
they are with political parties.
Those who felt the VDC/municipality distributed aid
fairly were almost twice as likely as those who felt they
did not distribute it fairly to be satisfied with political
parties (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2: Satisfaction with local political parties - by perceptions of whether
VDC/municipality has been distributing aid fairly (IRM-4, weighted)
Satisfaction with local political parties on assistance with disaster relief since last monsoon
Satisfied Not satisfied Don’t know/ refused
Do you agree VDC/municipality Agree 31% 49% 19%
is distributing aid fairly since the Disagree 16% 70% 14%
end of the last monsoon Don’t know/refused 12% 56% 32%
63
Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict
More people were dissatisfied with how local
political parties had informed them about
aid than were satisfied andpeople commonly
thought that VDCs and municipalities were
not distributing aid fairly.
The share of people who were not satisfied with the
information about aid they received from political
parties was 10 percentage points more than the share
who were satisfied. People’s assessment of VDC/
municipality fairness is also likely to influence their
perception about how local parties communicated
with people in earthquake-affected areas (Table 5.3).
People who said that the VDC/municipality did poorly
in distributing aid were more likely to be dissatisfied
with how local political parties communicated with
them about aid.
Table 5.3: Satisfaction with how local political parties inform about aid - by perceptions
of whether VDC/municipality has been distributing aid fairly (IRM-4 weighted)
Satisfaction with how local political parties informs you about aid since the end of the last monsoon
Satisfied Not satisfied Don’t know/ refused
Do you agree VDC/municipality Agree 34% 44% 22%
is distributing aid fairly since the Disagree 19% 65% 17%
end of the last monsoon Don’t know/refused 15% 55% 31%
5.2 Local elections and local body restructuring
People did not think that the creation of new
local units in place of existing municipalities
and VDCs would have a significant impact
on the recovery and reconstruction process.44 * * * * * 44
Local officials in 11 out of the 12 VDCs visited during
the qualitative study were confident that the restruc-
turing of local government units would not negatively
affect the reconstruction process. Local officials in
those VDCs stated that beneficiaries of the reconstruc-
tion cash grant would be served from the same place/
office as before, even though local government units
had changed. The one exception was Syaule VDC in
Sindhupalchowk, where local officials showed appre-
hension, believing that the change in local government
units would slow down the distribution of the second
instalment of the housing cash grants as they were
not well informed of their roles under the new local
governance arrangements. In Solokhumbu, where the
CBS assessment was at the final stage of completion
during IRM-4, the planned restructuring of local units
had no impact on the assessment process.
Preparations for the local elections had an
impact on the reconstruction process. The
main impact was the temporary suspension of
the distribution of reconstruction cash grants
until the end of the elections.
As the code of conduct for the elections came into
force at the start of March 2017, the distribution of
reconstruction cash grants in the villages was halted.
According to the Election Code of Conduct 201545, the
government is barred from conducting or transferring
funds for new programs that are not included in the
annual budget and program of the state after the an-
44 The Constitution of Nepal promulgated in 2015 created three tiers
of government: local government, state government and federal
government. In March 2017, the Commission for Restructuring of
Village, Municipalities, and Special, Protected and Autonomous
Area, commonly known as the Local Body Restructuring
Commission (LBRC), recommended the establishment of 744
new local government units that replaced over 3,000 previous
local units, VDCs and Municipalities. For more information, see
DRCN, Preliminary Findings on Local Body Restructuring at the
Local Level, September 8, 2016, available at: https://drcnepal.
files.wordpress.com/2o16/o9/drcn_local-body-restructuring-
in-nepal_-09-08-16.pdf). See also a follow up note, available
at: http://democracyresource.org/admin/images/Local%20
body % 2 o Restructuring% 2 o St atement_N epali .pdf.
45 http://www.election.gov.np/ecn/uploads/userfiles/electioncode
0fc0nductFinal2073-12-25withsec0ndamendment.pdf.
64
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
nouncement of elections. Although the reconstruction
cash grant is not a new program, and it was part of the
annual budget of 2016/17, local officials in all districts
decided that the Code of Conduct was still applicable.
As a result, distribution of the first instalment in
Solukhumbu, and of the second and third instalment
in the three other districts, was halted. The process of
grant distribution was also halted for households who
had recently become eligible beneficiaries after their
complaints were addressed as part of the grievance
process and they were added to the beneficiary list.
Preparations for the local elections also
affected the NRA’s grievance management
efforts in Gorkha.
The Chief District Officer (CDO) in Gorkha accepted
that district officials would not be able to complete
re-verification of grievance applications sent from
the NRA to the district before the end of the elections
on May 14, 2017, as they had to carry out elections-
related responsibilities and could not focus solely on
reconstruction cash grant distribution.
The application of the Election Code of Conduct
also effected the work ofNGOs and INGOs.
District authorities instructed NGOs and INGOs not to
distribute relief materials or implement new programs
relating to earthquake reconstruction in the month
preceding the first phase of local elections in mid-May
2017. NGOs and INGOs in Gorkha, for example, were
instructed by district officials not to distribute aid to
people before the end of the elections.46 Similarly, the
VDC Secretary in Lisankhu VDC in Sindhupalchowk
requested that organizations working on reconstruc-
tion in the district stop implementing new programs
until the end of the elections.
The local elections were also expected to
impact the availability of masons.
According to a senior police officer in Sindhupalchowk,
many young people who had received masonry training
had joined the temporary police force in the district. In
all districts where elections were scheduled, the Gov-
ernment of Nepal had hired local youths as temporary
police for the duration of the election period.
Vote preferences and perceptions of the local elections
With local elections approaching, visits by
elected officials in the earthquake areas
increased. The visits may have had some
influence on voting preferences.
Reports of visits by elected officials increased com-
pared to the six months leading up to September 2016.
However, more people reported visits from officials in
June 2015, right after the earthquakes, than was the
case since IRM-3. For people in earthquake-affected
areas, visits from elected officials may have had some
bearing on their voting intentions. When asked what
party people would vote for, two in 10 did not answer
the question regardless of whether or not they reported
officials had recently visited (Figure 5.1). However,
where officials had visited, and especially where they
visited a lot, people were less likely to say they do not
know who they would vote for.
The ability of candidates/parties to support
reconstruction and recovery in earthquake-
effected area was a factor determining voting
choices but not the most prominent one.
When asked about the most important factors when
choosing political candidates in the upcoming elec-
tions, more than two-thirds of people said they favored
a candidate/party that they felt supported local devel-
opment (Table 5.4). The next most important reason
was family loyalty to a party (30%). Social pressure
also seemed to be a key factor, as 25% mentioned that
they would support a candidate/party in line with
the choice of their friends. Twenty percent of people
said that the ability of candidates/parties to support
reconstruction and recovery in earthquake-affected
area was a key factor.
Refused Don't know
46 My Republica, I/NGOs asked to halt work until elections, available
at: http://www.myrepublica.com/news/17845/
65
Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict
Table 5.4: Factors determining voting choice - by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Severely hit
(D
C
o
0)
V) E
-C o
£ 2
(U o
Q. >
CU
0) ro
c £
o V)
tea CU CD
o Q. E
Dhading 93% 35% 2% 20% 50% 13% 33% 3% 11%
Gorkha 48% 24% 4% 7% 24% 32% 13% 1% 8%
Nuwakot 70% 37% 12% 37% 27% 19% 32% 7% 2%
Ramechhap 64% 41% 2% 8% 29% 25% 12% 2% 2%
Sindhupalchowk 68% 34% 7% 9% 42% 37% 9% 7% 4%
Crisis hit 69% 11% 2% 16% 27% 25% 14% 1% 2%
Bhaktapur 65% 11% 0% 3% 28% 12% 7% 2% 3%
Kathmandu 71% 9% 3% 19% 25% 26% 15% 1% 2%
Okhaldhunga 51% 33% 3% 8% 48% 47% 16% 2% 3%
Hit with heavy losses 72% 43% 4% 26% 34% 30% 26% 6% 6%
Lamjung 71% 35% 2% 23% 37% 31% 23% 6% 9%
Solukhumbu 75% 57% 7% 32% 28% 29% 32% 6% 0%
Hit 34% 6% 2% 4% 23% 24% 7% 6% 2%
Syangja 34% 6% 2% 4% 23% 24% 7% 6% 2%
All districts 67% 20% 3% 16% 30% 25% 16% 3% 3%
Unsurprisingly, those whose house sustained major
damage or complete destruction were nearly twice
as likely than those with minor damage, and four to
five times more likely than people with no damage, to
prefer candidates who they thought would focus on
recovery and reconstruction.
Table 5.5: Factors determining voting choice - by housing damage (IRM-4, weighted)
Party/candidate most likely to support development in this area Party/candidate most likely to improve earthquake recovery and reconstruction l/my family always vote for this party/ candidate My friends will vote for this party/candidate Personal/family connection with the party/ candidate
Completely destroyed 69% 27% 32% 27% 20%
Major damage 64% 24% 30% 29% 14%
Minor damage 64% 13% 32% 26% 14%
No damage 64% 6% 22% 17% 11%
High caste people were 18 percentage points more
likely than low caste and 6 points more likely than
Janajatis to prioritize local development when choos-
ing a party/candidate while low caste people were
more likely than others to prioritize reconstruction
and recovery.
A small proportion of respondents thought
that elections would not be free and fair.
Booth capture and proxy voting were the
primary concerns.
Four in io people in earthquake-affected areas said
they thought the upcoming elections would be free and
66
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
fair but three in 10 were unsure. Another 17% thought
they would not be free and fair and 12% said they
would be free and fair but with some minor glitches.
Those who thought the elections would not be free and
fair or that there would be minor glitches were asked
what issues could arise. The top three issues were
booth capture (34%), proxy voting (28%), and pre-
election intimidation (17%). Fewer people mentioned
procedural and political issues surrounding this
election such as the hurried way elections were being
held amidst Madhesi parties’ protests (4%) or the
formalities of holding the election (3%).
Outlook on earthquake reconstruction
work after the local elections
Beliefs that the local election results would
have positive impact on reconstruction were
mixed.
In the qualitative fieldwork, community members in
all three VDCs in Solukhumbu felt that reconstruction
in their VDCs would quicken after the local elections.
In Barpak and Dhuwakot VDCs in Gorkha, political
parties promised better reconstruction as their
campaign pledge.
Data from the survey shows mixed feelings. Overall,
four in 10 said that reconstruction would operate the
same way as before after the elections, but they were
more likely to be optimistic (4% much better, 34%
much better) than pessimistic (1% somewhat worse,
1% much worse) - Table 5.6. Except in the hit with
heavy losses districts, at least one-quarter were unsure
what the elections would mean for reconstruction
work. In Ramechhap, nearly six in 10 were optimistic
about the outcome of the local elections as it relates
to earthquake reconstruction work. Just over four in
10 in Sindhupalchowk, Lamjung, Bhaktapur, Okhald-
hunga and Solukhumbu agreed. Optimism about local
elections was lowest in Kathmandu (27%).
Table 5.6: Outlook on earthquake reconstruction work as a result of the local elections -
by district impact and district (IRM-4, weighted)
Much better Somewhat better Same Somewhat worse Much worse Don’t know
Severely hit 6% 34% 36% 1% 0% 23%
Dhading 9% 30% 24% 2% 1% 35%
Gorkha 8% 23% 41% 1% 0% 25%
Nuwakot 3% 29% 48% 2% 0% 18%
Ramechhap 3% 55% 25% 0% 0% 17%
Sindhupalchowk 3% 40% 41% 1% 0% 13%
Crisis hit 3% 26% 46% 1% 0% 23%
Bhaktapur 3% 39% 39% 1% 0% 16%
Kathmandu 3% 24% 48% 1% 1% 23%
Okhaldhunga 4% 36% 30% 0% 0% 30%
Hit with heavy losses 6% 39% 42% 4% 2% 7%
Lamjung 2% 44% 37% 6% 3% 7%
Solukhumbu 12% 32% 49% 0% 0% 6%
Hit 4% 33% 39% 1% 0% 22%
Syangja 4% 33% 39% 1% 0% 22%
All districts 4% 30% 42% 1% 1% 22%
People in less remote areas were more likely to believe
there would be no change in reconstruction work
(51%), while one-third in more remote and remote
areas said that they felt reconstruction would at least
somewhat improve as a result of the local elections.
The perception that local elections would improve
reconstruction work also rises slightly with income.
Views among those who have received (at least part
of) the RHRP housing grant and those who have not
are nearly identical.
67
Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict
5.3 Security, crime and social cohesion
Security and crime
As in the previous rounds of research, most
people reported that they felt safe and reports
of violent incidents iverefeiv.
People surveyed in all four survey rounds have felt
either very safe or somewhat safe in their community.
In the severely hit districts, right after the earthquake,
four in 10 said they felt very safe (43% IRM-1);
the share saying so grew to nearly seven in 10 in
subsequent rounds (66% IRM-2, 68% IRM-3, 69%
IRM-4) - Figure 5.2. In the crisis hit districts, at least
half have said they felt very safe in each round (highest
in IRM-3 at 62%). The share who have said they felt
very safe has also consistently been high in the hit with
heavy losses and hit districts.
Figure 5.2: Perceptions of security - by district impact
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
50% 40% 7%
Very safe H Somewhat unsafe
Somewhat safe H Very unsafe
As in previous surveys, there are not substantive
differences in perceptions of safety between men and
women. Two in 10 of both men and women felt unsafe
after the earthquake in IRM-1. In subsequent surveys,
only 3% of either gender have said they feel unsafe in
their community.
There have been very few reports of violent incidents
since the earthquakes. Five percent or less reported
such incidents in any of the survey rounds (Table 5.7).
Kathmandu residents have been by far the most likely
to report a violent incident (19% in IRM-1, 8% in
IRM-4).
68
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Table 5.7: Share saying there was a violent incident in their community - by district impact and district
(IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Jun 2015 (IRM-1) Feb-Mar 2016 (IRM-2) Sep 2016 (IRM-3) Apr 2017 (IRM-4)
Severely hit 2% 0% 2% 1%
Dhading 5% 1% 0% 1%
Gorkha 1% 0% 3% 1%
Nuwakot 2% 1% 3% 2%
Ramechhap 0% 1% 1% 1%
Sindhupalchowk 1% 0% 3% 0%
Crisis hit 5% 1% 1% 2%
Bhaktapur 5% 1% 0% 1%
Kathmandu 19% 0% 0% 8%
Hit with heavy losses 3% 1% 0% 0%
Okhaldhunga 2% 2% 2% 2%
Lamjung 3% 0% 0% 0%
Solukhumbu 3% 3% 0% 0%
Hit 3% 2% 1% 1%
Syangja 3% 2% 1% 1%
All districts 3% 1% 1% 1%
Social cohesion and social relations
Social relations in most affected areas remain
good but trust is preserved for people they
know.
Very few people in earthquake-affected areas have said
that most people can be trusted (9% IRM-2,6% IRM-3,
6% IRM-4). Most think that you need to be very careful
in dealing with people (91% IRM-2, 94% IRM-3, 94%
IRM-4). Over seven in 10 people in earthquake-affected
districts trust people they know (77% IRM-3,73% IRM-
4) - Figure 5.3. They find those who come from an area
different from themselves the least trustworthy (27%
IRM-3,29% IRM-4). Just over four in 10 have said they
trust people from a different caste (41% IRM-3, 45%
IRM-4). Around four in 10 trust people belonging to
a religion different than their own (39% IRM-3, 43%
IRM-4). Trust in friends, family and neighbors is down
slightly since IRM-3 (4 points), while trust in other
groups has grown slightly — up 2 percentage points
for people from a different area, 4 percentage points
for people belonging to a different caste and 4 points
for people following a different religion.
Figure 5.3: Share trusting different groups of people (IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
69
Politics, Social Cohesion and Conflict
People in earthquake-affected areas have consistently
said that people in their community are likely to co-
operate if the government asks them to conserve food
or water in case of an emergency - Figure 5.4. In the
severely hit districts, fewer people said people in their
community would be very likely to conserve food or
water in the earlier months after the earthquake (20%
IRM-2) compared to later surveys (40% IRM-3, 32%
IRM-4). A similar trend is found in the hit with heavy
losses districts (14% very likely in IRM-2, 26% IRM-3,
27% IRM-4). In the crisis hit districts, too, a slightly
lower share said people would be very likely to coop-
erate in the earlier survey.
Figure 5.4: Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if asked by the government in
case of an emergency - by district impact (IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4 household panel, unweighted)
Very likely H Unlikely Don't know/refused
Likely H Very unlikely
Similar shares of men and women have said that
community members would be very likely to cooperate
the three times this question was asked. Those with
a high pre-earthquake income have been more
likely than people with low or mid-level incomes to
think that it is very likely that cooperation in their
community would take place.
70
Photo: Nayan Pokharel
6.1 Overview of conclusions
How have conditions evolved in the earthquake-affect-
ed areas of Nepal? What are the key challenges that
need to be overcome if recovery is to take root? And
how can aid best support this? The Independent Im-
pacts and Recovery (IRM) project contributes findings
and analysis to help answer these questions through
longitudinal, mixed methods research.
This report outlines findings from the fourth round
of IRM research, conducted in April 2017. Combining
findings from the survey and qualitative research, it
provides a snapshot of conditions two years on from
the disasters. It makes comparisons with data from
past rounds of IRM to see how needs and conditions
are changing over time.
Despite progress with reconstruction grant
distribution, many households had still not
started rebuilding.
Since IRM-3, there has been significant progress in
rolling out the Nepal Rural Housing Reconstruction
Program. Most people who have been declared eligible
for the program have received the first tranche of
funds and most, but not all, people found the process
of accessing the grant fairly easy. Due to this program,
40% of people in earthquake-affected areas are
now receiving recovery or reconstruction assistance
compared to just 15% in September 2016.
However, despite receiving the first installment of the
housing grant, the survey found that many households
had not started rebuilding, especially in severely hit
districts where 62% of people are living in temporary
shelters. In contrast, only 5% in crisis hit districts and
2% each in hit with heavy losses and hit districts are
still in temporary shelters. In Sindhupalchowk, the
district that was most severely hit by the quakes, 84%
of surveyed people remain in shelters.
Delays slowed rebuilding progress in early
2017.
While the reconstruction of private houses started
to progress significantly in late 2016, it had slowed
down again by early 2017 due to labor shortages,
high prices for construction labor and materials,
high transportation costs and delays in the inspection
process and the disbursement of the second installment
of the housing reconstruction grant. Adding to delays
was the focus of local government on the local elections
in May and June 2017, which also reduced the amount
of aid that households received from I/NGOs.
The most common source of frustration among
housing grant beneficiaries, and one of the main
reasons for the slow pace of reconstruction in April
2017, was the perceived delay in the distribution
of the second installment of the cash grant. Delays
in the disbursement of subsequent tranches of the
71
Conclusions and Recommendations
housing reconstruction grant, and uncertainty over
procedures and future steps of the housing grant
program, affected whether people had started or were
continuing to rebuild.
A lack of money was the main obstacle to
rebuilding.
The housing reconstruction grant is deemed insuf-
ficient to pay for rebuilding and households lacked
awareness of and access to government soft loans
schemes. Receiving the first installment of the re-
construction grant does not appear to increase the
likelihood of people starting to rebuild. A majority of
people who have received the first tranche report that
they are not using it in line with program’s purpose of
building earthquake-resistant houses.
Borrowing has remained high and will likely
increase to finance future construction.
With reconstruction having begun in earnest, more
households were borrowing larger sums to cover rising
construction costs, and borrowing for livelihoods
support also remained high. Fifty-five percent of
people surveyed took loans in the period between
IRM-3 and IRM-4. Borrowing from informal lenders
has largely financed the rebuilding that has taken
place, but typically at very high interest rates, and
households said such borrowing will also finance
future construction. The survey data show that many
people are struggling to make repayments, with
average levels of debt tripling since the earthquakes.
Worryingly, there has been an increase, albeit rela-
tively small, in the number of people selling assets
in attempts to recover. Those who borrow most fre-
quently are the most likely to sell assets, suggesting
that either loans taken are not enough or that people
are having to sell assets to repay loans they could not
afford. There is some evidence that migration for work
has also increased in order to pay back loans.
Households who had started to rebuild often
lacked support to rebuild in safer ways.
Those households who had started rebuilding often
did not have access to adequate technical assistance to
help them build back safer and to become compliant
for the second and third installments of the housing
grant. Persistent delays also encouraged households
to build back in less safe ways or to delay rebuilding
and stay in unsafe locations and houses.
People from vulnerable groups continue to
lag behind in their recovery.
There is an increasingly large gap between households
who are able to rebuild now or later and those who
cannot rebuild or who are getting into high levels of
indebtedness whilst rebuilding. This includes Dalits,
economically poor, single women, the disabled,
widows, the elderly and the historically marginalized.
For example, households with a low pre-earthquake
income are substantially more likely to remain in
shelters than others; much less likely to have started
rebuilding; and much more likely to have seen a decline
in their income since the earthquakes. Additionally,
Dalits have been more likely to be excluded from
access to resources, such as community forests, which
provide materials for reconstruction.
While in general aid is being better targeted at those in
need than before, challenges remain. Those with a low
pre-earthquake income are also far more likely to be
taking out loans and to be selling assets. Findings are
similar for other vulnerable groups such as Dalits, the
disabled and widows. For these groups, the existing
housing grant is not sufficient for rebuilding and they
have not found it easy to access soft loans.
Poor information-sharing and coordination
challenges have impacted on reconstruction.
Households are confused about timelines and the
requirements needed to receive the second installment
of the housing grant. People also lack information on
procedures, requirements, and technical standards,
which has delayed the ability of people to take
informed decisions about rebuilding. Many of those
who lodged complaints are also confused about the
grievance management process. Those who were
displaced or who need to be resettled to safer areas
lack information and support, hindering their ability to
make safe informed choices. Coordination challenges
also revolve around the lack of clarity on the roles
and responsibilities of local government bodies and
the NRA.
Needs beyond reconstruction have not been
addressed.
Reconstruction of houses and cash assistance were
again cited as the primary needs by earthquake-af-
fected households and the focus of assistance remains
on housing reconstruction and cash grants. Yet other
needs remain and there is a wide range of issues that
are critical to recovery beyond rebuilding. People
mentioned the need for improved roads (to support
rebuilding), repairs to damaged water infrastructure
and improvements to health facilities. While markets
have largely recovered, many farmers are still in need
of livelihood support. There is a labor shortage in the
agricultural sector, partly due to the higher wages in
reconstruction work. In addition, geological damage
from the earthquakes, fears of landslides, crop dep-
redation and water shortages continue to impact the
farming sector.
72
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Photo: Nayan Pokharel
Social cohesion in communities has remained
strong and livelihoods are recovering in many
areas.
Most people’s sources of income have continued to
recover. While around one-third of people said their
current income is lower than before the earthquakes,
almost as many said they now earn more than they did
before them. People in earthquake-affected areas have
increasingly been able to generate non-farm income,
earning more from daily wage work, and from business
income. Livelihoods had generally resumed and some
laborers and businesses benefitted from increased
opportunities and higher wages.
Drops in food consumption, something identified in
earlier rounds of IRM, are now less pronounced than
before. One-third of people say their food consump-
tion has increased in the past year with only 6% saying
it has declined. Reductions in food consumption are
slightly higher in the most affected districts but, even
in these places, far more report increases in con-
sumption. Relatively few people now say food aid is a
priority need. The latest data also confirm the findings
of previous rounds that there has been little violence
in earthquake-affected.
73
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.2 Key focus areas and recommendations
The data and analysis from the IRM-4 research has
established emerging challenges relevant to ongoing
and future assistance for earthquake recovery. The
National Reconstruction Authority (NRA), interna-
tional donors, and non-government organizations
have already begun to respond to some of the issues
raised by the research but challenges and risks remain.
The report concludes by providing a set of independent
recommendations for aid providers. The focus areas,
and the policy implications that flow from them, do
not necessarily reflect the views of the donors to the
project.47
Reconstruction cash grants and household reconstruction
Communication on assistance schemes, and their re-
quirements and procedures, in particular in relation to
the reconstruction cash grants and required building
codes, needs to be improved. There was a lack of clear
information on timelines, procedures, requirements
and technical standards. The various steps in the
housing grant process are confusing to navigate for
many households.
A major reason why affected people could not con-
tinue to rebuild and were increasingly frustrated was
the relative lack of technical assistance and financial
resources. Those households that received technical
assistance when rebuilding primarily received ma-
sonry training, which evidence suggests has been of
limited use by itself. Prices for construction materials
as well as transportation continued to rise. Other
reasons for the lack of rebuilding were shortages of
laborers and trained masons, water shortages as well
as transportation difficulties in remote areas. The
planned provincial and national elections and the 2018
deadlines have the potential to create additional con-
fusion and affect rebuilding negatively unless flexible
plans are developed.
Recommendation 1: Communication about
timelines, procedures, requirements, and tech-
nical standards is vital to help households make
informed choices during the rebuilding process.
Information on when and how to become eligible
for the second and third installments of the re-
construction cash grants needs to communicated
widely to earthquake-affected households, local
government offices and citizens.
Recommendation 2: A range of technical
assistance support that goes beyond masonry
training needs to be provided to households to
help them build back safer and become compliant
with the second and third installments.
Recommendations: Consider steps to further
subsidize common construction materials and la-
bor, especially for vulnerable and remote house-
holds. Measures to reduce the transportation
costs of common construction materials should
also be explored.
Recommendation 4: The deadline for com-
pleting all household reconstruction by mid-2018
has the potential to create additional confusion
and also impact building back better negative-
ly. Develop and communicate flexible plans for
households who may miss the deadline.
Recommendation 5: Find ways to continue
reconstruction activities during the application of
the Election Code of Conduct period in upcoming
provincial and national elections planned for
November and December 2017.
Access to cash and credit
Borrowing from informal lenders at high interest rates
has largely financed the rebuilding that has taken
place, but typically at very high interest rates. In the
absence of other sources of credit such borrowing and
selling of assets will also finance future construction
and livelihoods support. Those who cannot afford
to rebuild in the absence of additional material or
financial assistance are falling behind in their recov-
ery and are vulnerable to severe poverty, debt traps
and exploitation. The poor and those whose income
has declined since the earthquakes borrow most fre-
quently suggesting repayment problems lie ahead.
This could lead some to sell their assets and get stuck
in debt traps.
Recommendation 6: Ensure better awareness
of and access to the two government low interest
loan schemes for earthquake victims.
47 These are independent recommendations rather than those of the
UK or Swiss government.
74
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Needs beyond reconstruction
There has been limited progress on a wide range of
issues critical to recovery beyond rebuilding, especially
in the farming sector. More attention is needed on the
reconstruction of physical infrastructure, including
schools and health posts, to support a broader
recovery.
Recommendation 7: Continue to increase
livelihoods support rather than focusing
assistance solely on housing grants. Support
for poor and struggling farmers is particularly
necessary in the form of farm inputs, training
and improving irrigation facilities.
Recommendation 8: Increase attention on
the reconstruction of physical infrastructure
including damaged water sources, government
offices, schools and health posts.
Resettlement of displaced households
While a new geological survey had taken place in
many areas, long-term resettlement plans for those
communities who were displaced due to damage to
their land or the high risk of landslides had not yet
been implemented or communicated to displaced
households by April 2017. Uncertainty over whether
communities would have to resettle permanently also
affected their ability to begin rebuilding and recover-
ing from the impacts of the earthquakes.
Recommendation 9: Communicate the results
of geological surveys to affected displaced
communities, other locals and local government
officials.
Recommendation 10: Implement resettlement
solutions in consultation with permanently dis-
placed communities. Such plans need to be devel-
oped with the involvement of local communities
to avoid conflict and with local authorities.
Support to vulnerable groups
Vulnerable groups, such as the poor, households in
remote areas, Dalits, single women, the elderly and
historically marginalized groups, are typically among
those who have been unable to rebuild by April 2017
and who remain in temporary shelters or who are get-
ting into high levels of indebtedness while rebuilding.
While additional government support that has been
announced for vulnerable groups is welcome, it is un-
clear whether it will lift these groups out of temporary
shelters and prevent a delayed recovery unless further
support is given.
Recommendation 11: Vulnerable groups will
likely take the longest to rebuild and will need
extra support to rebuild their homes that goes
beyond existing measures. Discussions should
start on the modalities of extra support to the
most vulnerable.
Coordination and local government
As in previous research rounds, local government
offices were often unable to give clear information
to concerned earthquake survivors, mostly because
they lacked information themselves. Communication
on assistance schemes, and their requirements and
procedures, in particular in relation to the reconstruc-
tion cash grants and required building codes, needs
to be improved. With local body restructuring being
implemented across Nepal, and elections to provin-
cial assemblies planned for late 2017, coordination of
responsibilities related to earthquake reconstruction
and recovery remains a challenge.
Recommendation 12: Improve communication
between government offices by strengthening
coordination mechanisms, and information flow
between theNRA and government line ministries
in Kathmandu, districts headquarters and rural
municipalities (Gaupalika).
Recommendation 13: Improve training on
NRA policies and procedures for local government
officers at Gaupalika and district levels.
75
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Annex A
The current status of
reconstruction
Housing reconstruction
According to the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment,
498,852 private houses were fully damaged and
256,697 private houses were partially damaged in 31
districts by the earthquakes of April and May 2015.48
According to the damage assessment conducted by
the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), as of early
September 2017 a total of 724,895 households
across the 31 affected districts are eligible to receive
reconstruction assistance.49 This includes 626,694
households in the 14 most affected districts and 98,201
households in the 17 less-affected districts. As stated in
previous IRM reports, the wait for the CBS assessment
led to delays in the distribution of reconstruction
grants and frustration among earthquake victims.
However, an additional 27,183 households in the 14
most affected districts have been added to the number
of eligible households after their complaints were
addressed as part of the grievance process. As a result,
there are a total of 752,078 eligible households.50 This
figure is likely to rise following ongoing resurveying as
part of the grievance process. A further 24,991 private
houses, not counted in the total number of households
eligible to receive housing grants, have been assessed
as partially damaged and deemed eligible for cash
assistance for retrofitting.51
Recent progress. Progress in rebuilding remains
slow. By late August 2017, more than two years after
the disaster, a total of 47,355 houses had been rebuilt
according to the NRA (out of 752,078 eligible house-
holds).52 At the time of the IRM-4 fieldwork in April
2017, the signing of beneficiary agreements and the
distribution of the first installment of the reconstruc-
tion cash grant was largely complete in the 14 most
affected districts including Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk
and Okhaldhunga. Inspections for and distribution of
the second installment started in January 2017 in the
14 most affected districts. Inspections for and distri-
bution of the third installment in the 14 most affected
districts began in March 2017. At the time of IRM-4
in April 2017, the CBS damage assessment survey of
the 17 less-affected districts was nearing completion
(including in Solukhumbu). However, the signing of
beneficiary agreements and the distribution of the first
installment of the reconstruction cash grant had just
started in April 2017 in these districts.
As of early September 2017,635,289 households across
all 31 districts had signed beneficiary agreements
(out of 752,078 eligible beneficiaries)53 and 605,385
households in all 31 districts had received the first
installment of the grant in their beneficiary bank
48 Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Nepal
Earthquake 2015: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (Volume
A: Key Findings), Kathmandu 2015. Available at: https://www.
nepalhousingreconstruction.org/sites/nuh/files/2o17-o3/
PDNA%2oVolume%2oA%2oFinal.pdf.
49 From the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development’s
Central Level Project Implementation Unit (MoFALD CLPIU)
update, September 1, 2017. Available at http://mofald-clpiu.gov.
np/notice-detail/205.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 http://nra.gov.np/mapdistrict/datavisualization as of September 1,
2017. This figure includes all houses that have been constructed,
not just houses that have been constructed under the RHRP.
53 The total of 752,078 includes beneficiaries added after grievances
were addressed.
77
Annex
account (see Table A.i).54 The difference between
the number of eligible beneficiaries and the number
of households who had signed grant agreements is
largely due to the fact that the enrolment process is
not complete, as of September 2017, in the 17 less-
affected districts.55
Table A.1: Progress of private house reconstruction and cash grant distribution
in the research area as of September 2017
Total (across 31 districts) Gorkha Sindhupalchowk Solukhumbu Okhaldhunga
Damage and assessments
Private house owners identified by the CBS survey as eligible beneficiaries56 724,895 58,503 78,537 10,794 19,819
Additional beneficiaries after grievances redressed57 27,183 2,312 1,380 N/A 346
Current total number of eligible beneficiaries 752,078 60,815 79,917 10,794 20,165
Households identified for retrofitting grants58 24,991 2,019 376 456 1,643
Cash grants *59
Beneficiaries who had signed cash grant agreements as of September 1,2017 635,289 54,521 75,304 8,095 18,701
Beneficiaries who had received the first installment of the cash grant (in beneficiary account) 605,385 54,521 75,191 514 18,644
Beneficiaries who had received the second installment of the cash grant (in beneficiary account) 65,011 6,800 11,070 0 3,405
Beneficiaries applying for the second installment who are noncompliant60 5,974 147 277 0 732
Beneficiaries who had received the third installment of the reconstruction cash grant (in beneficiary account) 3,902 1,96461 568 0 2
Beneficiaries applying for the third installment who are noncompliant62 529 0 8 0 267
54 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
55 There is a small caseload of eligible households in the 14 most-
affected districts who have not signed beneficiary agreements.
This is mostly concentrated in 14 VDCs across the 14 districts,
where less than 50% of households have signed the beneficiary
agreement. The Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform
(HRRP) are following up in those VDCs to understand the factors
behind this.
56 From the completed CBS assessment in the MoFALD CLPIU
update, September 1, 2017.
57 Ibid. Grievances have not yet been reviewed in the 17 less-affected
districts including Solukhumbu.
58 Ibid.
59 Unless stated all data from MoFALD CLPIU update, September
1, 2017.
60 This refers to beneficiaries who have applied for the second
installment but whose construction did not fulfil the minimum
standards during the inspection process. Figures taken from the
Ministry of Urban Development CLPIU update, 1 September 2017:
http://202.45.144.197/nfdnfis/clpiu/index.htm.
61 No figure listed on the MoFALD CLPIU update. Taken from the
MoUD CLPIU update, September 1,2017: http://202.45.144.197/
nfdnfis / clpiu/index.htm.
62 MoUD CLPIU update, September 1,2017: http://202.45.144.197/
nfdnfis / clpiu/index.htm.
78
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal
Total (across 31 districts) Gorkha Sindhupalchowk Solukhumbu Okhaldhunga
Complaints 63
Registered complaints at the local level 207,86163 64 N/A 14,44765 N/A N/A
Complaints reviewed by the NRA as of August 2017 201,95166 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Number of grievances cleared 198,32167 N/A 10,83868 N/A N/A
Additional beneficiaries after grievances redressed69 27,183 2,312 1,380 N/A 346
Approved complaints N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Complaints needing further field verification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reassessment ordered by the NRA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rejected complaints N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reconstruction
Houses rebuilt as of September 20177° 47.35571 4,418 5,620 N/A 1,674
NRA deadlines. In July 2017 the NRA set its own
deadlines for earthquake victims to receive all grants
for the reconstruction of private homes within the
fiscal year 2017/18 (which ends in mid-July 2018),
reportedly in order to speed up reconstruction.72
Eligible beneficiaries must have signed a beneficiary
agreement with local bodies by November 16, 2017.
The first installment of the reconstruction grant must
be disbursed by January 13, 2018, the second install-
ment by April 13, 2018 and the third installment by
July 15, 2018.73 As of September 2017, it is unclear
what will happen to beneficiaries who do not meet the
deadlines in 2018.
Complaints and reverification. When the CBS
assessment was conducted it also led to most of the
207,861 grievances74 registered by earthquake victims
in the 14 most affected districts who were left out
or believed they were categorized incorrectly in the
damage assessment. Of these, 201,951 grievances were
reviewed and 198,321 grievances were redressed.75
Many complaints related to households who claimed
that they were left out of the CBS damage assessment
or else were incorrectly categorized under the wrong
damage grade (and therefore were ineligible for
reconstruction grants). As of early September 2017,
a total of 27,183 beneficiaries have been added to
the eligible beneficiaries list in the 14 most affected
districts after their grievance had been resolved.76
The NRA has set a deadline that all grievances should
be officially registered by mid-February 2018.77 The
grievance caseload for the 17 less-affected districts had
not yet been made public as of August 2017.
63 Up-to-date district disaggregated data on complaints is not
available as of September 2017.
64 http://nra.gov.np/mapdistrict/datavisualization as of September
1, 2017.
65 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
66 http://nra.gov.np/mapdistrict/datavisualization as of September
1, 2017.
67 Ibid.
68 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
69 Ibid. Grievances have not yet been reviewed in the 17 less-affected
districts including Solukhumbu.
70 Ibzd. http://202.45.144.197/nfdnfis/clpiu/index.htm.
71 http://nra.gov.np/mapdistrict/datavisualization as of September
1,2017. This figure includes all houses that have been constructed,
not just houses that have been constructed under the RHRP.
72 ‘NRA sets mid-July 2018 deadline for beneficiaries’, July 18,
2017, http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2o17-o7-18/
nra-sets-mid-july-2018-deadline-f0r-beneficiaries.html.
73 HRRP Weekly Bulletin, July 24,2017. http://www.hrrpnepal.org/
upload/resources/XSd3TlqZ5NWkBECjyJiF_2Oi7_O7_24.pdf.
74 http://nra.gov.np/mapdistrict/datavisualization as of September
1, 2017.
75 Redressed grievances are sent to local authorities to inform the
person who submitted the grievance of the outcome and to include
their name in the beneficiary list if required.
76 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
77 NRA August 2017 newsletter http://nra.gov.np/uploads/docs/
RgF1n5iveS170825093339.pdf.
79
Annex
Cash grant agreements, compliance and
distribution. The process of signing reconstruction
grant agreements with beneficiaries began in early
2016 in the most affected districts. After grievances
were addressed a total of 574,717 households had
signed agreements by September 2017 in the 14 most
affected districts.78 The process of signing agreements
is continuing in the 17 less-affected districts where, by
September 2017, 60,572 households had signed grant
agreements.79
After policy changes to the amount and number of
tranches were formalized in December 2016, the
current guidelines state that earthquake victims will
receive NPR 50,000 in the first installment, NPR
150,000 in the second and an additional NPR 100,000
in the third installment.80 NPR 75,000 of the last in-
stallment has been granted for the construction of the
roof-level while the remaining NPR 25,000 is tied to
the construction or repair of a toilet (mandatory) or
solar power (not mandatory). The second and third
tranches will only be provided if the household con-
struction has been inspected and found to meet the
minimum requirements.81 If the inspection finds that
the construction work does not meet the minimum
requirements the household is issued with a correction
order detailing the corrections required in order to be-
come compliant. Once the corrections are completed
the work will be inspected again and, if compliant, the
grant will be provided.
The NRA along with technical experts from line
ministries and partner organizations has developed
a ‘Corrections and Exceptions’ manual to help house-
holds who do not meet the compliance criteria.82 The
manual sets out remedial measures required for the
most common non-compliance issues and also sets
out cases where exceptions are allowed. The manual
is intended to help technical staff and engineers in the
field as well as households. In order to help people
meet the compliance criteria the NRA has continued
to stress the need for partner organizations to focus on
providing technical assistance. As of late August 2017,
just 17 VDCs out of 618 affected VDCs are receiving
the full package of technical assistance.83 *
Problems remain in documenting how many benefi-
ciaries have accessed their bank accounts as payment
of the housing grant is defined as the point at which
the money in put into bank accounts for earthquake
victims. Many earthquake victims have faced obstacles
in accessing their bank accounts as detailed in previ-
ous IRM reports.85 As of September 2017, 605,385
of 635,289 households with grant agreements had
received the first installment of the grant in their
beneficiary bank account; 65,011 had received the
second installment; and 3,902 had received the third
installment (see Table A.1 above).48 The NRA measures
beneficiaries receiving the grant installments when the
amount is sent to beneficiary bank accounts. No data
exist on how many people have withdrawn the amount
from their account.
Policies and guidelines since April 2017. During
2017 the NRA made efforts to address policy gaps
and the diversity of housing reconstruction needs
beyond new housing construction, with a particular
focus on vulnerable and poor earthquake victims
who are struggling to rebuild. Although guidelines
existed beforehand to help such communities, it has
mainly been during 2017 that the NRA has been able
to formalize such policies. The main changes made
by the NRA are contained in a new version of the
Grant Disbursement Procedures for Private Houses
Destroyed by the Earthquakes, 2073 (2016), revised in
May 2017, and the new Procedures for the Relocation
and Rehabilitation of Hazard-prone Settlements,
2073 (2017), approved in April 2017. The revisions
included putting in place grants for the purchase of
land for the resettlement of earthquake victims living
in geologically unsafe areas and grants for landless
earthquake victims.
78 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
79 Ibid.
80 Grant Disbursement Procedures for Private Houses Destroyed
by the Earthquakes, 2073 (2016, revised 2017).
81 As per the Grant Disbursement Procedures for Private Houses
Destroyed by the Earthquakes, 2073 (2016, revised 2017) and
the Technical Inspection Guidelines for Housing Reconstruction
http: / / www.hrrpnepal.org/upload/ resources / OxGJpvmui56FIL
jdfZU9_2017_02_22.pdf.
82 Correction/Exception Manual for Masonry Structure http://nra.
gov.np/uploads/docs/EZfLdhwMbDi7o82OO44534.pdf.
83 HRRP Weekly Bulletin, September 4,2017. http://www.hrrpnepal.
org/ upload/ resources/sqifkegpltow96F3VRTP_2Oi7_O9—04.pdf.
84 For example, in THE IRM thematic study.
85 MoFALD CLPIU update, September 1, 2017.
80
|
