Emma Gogerty, Sarah Opitz-Stapleton, Kanchan Mani Dixit The devastating flood and debris flow along the Nepal–China border on 26 August caused an estimated $2. 7 billion in loss and damage. Total recovery and reconstruction needs are likely to exceed $4. 8 billion according to the Government’s Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment. As of 3 October 2026, 1, 455 bodies have been recovered and over 5, 200 remain missing; these numbers could climb as information comes in from hard-to-reach communities. Furthermore, the disaster caused cascading damage and disruptions to local agricultural, fishing, and forestry livelihoods and markets. Emergency relief is, of course, essential. But relief is only the first stage of a longer process of recovery, reconstruction and – ultimately – resilience. This stage is typically the most under-funded. It is also where sustainable development organisations tend to make their most lasting contribution – if they stay long enough to get there. The theme of this year’s International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction (marked annually on 13 October) is ‘Resilience Starts at Home’. Typically after a disaster, affected people are the first responders – they ‘self-recover’ out of necessity, relying on their ‘own and local resources, often with little or no external assistance’. Following a disaster on the scale of the August flood and debris flow, in communities where poverty already exceeds the national rate, there is only so much self-recovery and disaster-resilient reconstruction that can be done. The evolving landscape of disaster risk reduction in Nepal The Gorkha earthquake in 2015 holds a number of lessons for policy and practice on how to support people to recover and rebuild. The government played a critical role in supporting recovery through the provision of cash grants, financial assistance and training to support owner-driven reconstruction. However, tranches were conditional and housing recovery was slow, due to ‘householders’ lack of access to relevant, timely information and affordable materials for construction, together with mounting debts and complications relating to land tenure’. Since the earthquake, risk governance and the landscape of humanitarian action in Nepal have changed considerably. There has been a transition away from responding to crises towards managing risk, with enhanced state responsibility to manage disasters. In 2017, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act came into force, and a National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) was established in 2019. The Strategic Action Plan for Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, endorsed by the NDRRMA Executive Committee in 2024, recognises the need for an intersectional approach to reducing vulnerability and building the capacity of different groups to manage shocks. The harder problem is translating policies into action at the local level. A national disaster strategy means very little to a family living beside a dangerous river if that family has no knowledge of the evacuation route in the event of a flood. A national climate policy offers no protection to a farmer whose land has disappeared under water. A disaster management framework, however well written, cannot save a child if the early warning it promises never reaches that child’s village. This is precisely where sustainable development organisations can be most useful: not in writing new policy, but in helping to translate existing policy into resilience at the community level. From early warning to response and recovery in the aftermath of the flood, the NDRRMA has been working with ministries and in coordination with provincial and district-level governments, NGOs and community groups. The government has released $1. 06 million in cash relief for three districts, restored electricity and cell phone connectivity and deployed additional health workers. Grants and in-kind relief from international humanitarian organisations, philanthropies, governments and others are supporting the Nepali government’s immediate response and early recovery efforts. However, since the Gorkha earthquake, Nepal has not faced a disaster of this scale, where policies, governance structures and financing have been put to such a test. The coming months will bring into stark relief what aspects of the pivot from disaster response to preparedness and risk mitigation are working well, and what challenges remain. It also presents a chance for the government to consider how to strengthen and integrate climate change risk management into reconstruction and recovery, including supporting local efforts and capacity- building. Nepal will not be able to achieve these things without international support. Climate justice and compensation Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal has referred to the disaster as a ‘direct consequence of global climate change’. As such, ‘We are shifting our diplomatic framework from “aid” to “justice and compensation”. This is not a matter of charity; it is a matter of legal and moral liability. The major industrial emitters … have a historical responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations like Nepal’. Nepal has requested $20 million in climate-related flood compensation from the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). However, to date the FRLD (created at COP27 in 2022 and adopted at COP28 in 2023) has not paid out any funds, despite over 119 requests. With looming multi-country impacts expected from the 2026–2027 El Niño, the FRLD is likely to get many more requests, despite having received only about 30% of the funds pledged by wealthy countries. The lack of fund disbursement in relation to existing requests, including Nepal’s, raises real questions around climate justice, and whether wealthy countries will honour their climate and disaster financing commitments. Nepalis can only ‘self-recover’ so much. And the government, from the local to federal level, has finite resources for recovery, reconstruction and climate adaptation even as climate-related hazards continue to increase in frequency and severity. While Nepal has invested significantly in glacial-lake outburst floods (GLOF) monitoring, the August flood has highlighted the need to broaden this effort through earth observation, wider hazard monitoring, risk communication and transboundary data-sharing to identify evolving risks and support timely action. Greater efforts are required to support households and communities in integrating climate adaptation into flood recovery and reconstruction efforts, without locking in climate change risks. ‘Official reconstruction policies, regulations and conditions affect the speed of recovery trajectories and progress towards safer building’, often with unintended consequences. This leads to broader questions around state responsibility – including embedding climate change resilience within disaster risk management, reconstruction and development – and how the international community can support this process. This will also require the government to prioritise climate adaptation in its planning and overall oversight of development. National blueprints will not work; instead, it is important to recognise that people have different recovery trajectories that will change over time, based on ‘changing needs and priorities, livelihood pressures, psycho-social reactions to the disaster’ and the level of technical skills, resources and information available. Recognising different recovery trajectories, and supporting these through flexible and adaptable programming, is key.
After the flood: supporting recovery, reconstruction and resilience in Nepal
RELATED ARTICLES
