As foreign funding decreases, Nepal may have the opportunity to redefine its development priorities and focus on its own needs rather than the agendas of foreign donors.
Disaster preparedness in Nepal has become a key focus for INGOs, local NGOs and UN agencies, which provide training, resources and expertise. Despite these efforts, every other time a disaster hits, Nepal seems almost as unprepared as the last time around. And the cycle of pointing to challenges due to complex factors like governance issues and political instability, which hinder long-term solutions, seems perpetual.
INGOs often rely on external standards that may not align with Nepal's local context, offering temporary fixes rather than long-term reforms. It does not help either that the Nepali counterparts happily lap up these "solutions" with a view that something is better than nothing. The country's governance and policy instability further complicate disaster preparedness and reconstruction, highlighting the need for better alignment of aid with local needs and long-term strategies. But if this has not happened over the last 40 years, can we expect it to happen now? Or is President Trump right in his dismissal of international aid assistance as counterproductive?
With 10 different governments in just 13 years (2012–2025), it's clear why disaster management has been a neglected and fragmented issue. The constant change in leadership has fostered a sense of inertia, with no continuity in policies or long-term planning, particularly in disaster preparedness. The government's lethargic approach to these crises reflects a lack of urgency and accountability, as each new administration starts afresh, only to fall short of meaningful action. The combination of poor governance and rampant corruption has only exacerbated the situation, rendering any attempt at reform futile. Political instability has created an environment where disaster management is seen as a low priority, with each government more focused on short-term gains than long-term resilience. In this climate, calls for institutional development and disaster resilience feel more like empty promises than tangible solutions.
However, in the face of this reality, it is crucial to explore realistic and workable solutions. Nepal's vulnerability to natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and landslides, is undeniable, but there are practical steps that can be taken even in the absence of a stable government. First and foremost, disaster preparedness needs to be integrated into local communities rather than remain a top-down initiative driven by international actors. This can be done by empowering local governments and community-based organisations to take ownership of disaster preparedness programs. Such initiatives could be designed to cater to the specific needs and challenges of different regions, ensuring that the training and resources provided are tailored to local realities.
Disaster preparedness should be an ongoing process, not just something triggered by imminent threats. INGOs and UN agencies must restructure training to build self-sufficient systems that are sustainable long-term, focusing on strengthening local communities' capacity to handle disasters independently.
The government should create disaster management frameworks that endure beyond political cycles, ensuring future administrations prioritise preparedness. Given Nepal's political instability, disaster readiness should not depend solely on the central government. Decentralising power and strengthening local institutions are key to building a resilient disaster management system.
The global funding landscape for development aid is shifting. For many, this could seem like a worrying trend. However, there may be a silver lining in this shift-particularly for Nepal. One positive potential impact of these funding cuts could be the reduction in foreign interference in national policy making.
The large number of workshops, conferences and seminars organised by aid agencies may have led to a culture of dependency rather than self-sufficiency. As foreign funding decreases, Nepal may have the opportunity to redefine its development priorities and focus on its own needs rather than the agendas of foreign donors.
The reduction in foreign aid has introduced new challenges in disaster management, pushing Nepal to reassess its reliance on external funding. While this decrease in aid may create immediate hardships, it could also present an opportunity for government officials to shift focus from managing donor relationships and attending ceremonial events to addressing the country's core issues. Without the constant pressure to align with donor agendas, officials may have more time to focus on improving infrastructure, enhancing disaster response systems and developing sustainable long-term strategies for resilience. However, this shift also poses significant challenges, as the government must now navigate the complexities of disaster management with fewer resources and support.
Moreover, the reduction in aid could also encourage Nepal to explore alternative sources of funding and develop more sustainable models for financing development. This might include tapping into the private sector, increasing domestic revenue generation and strengthening partnerships with regional neighbors. By shifting away from a reliance on foreign aid, Nepal could begin to take more control over its own development trajectory, prioritising its own needs and focusing on building resilient institutions.
The loss of foreign funding will require Nepal to step up its domestic efforts in disaster preparedness, governance and development. The government will need to work closely with local communities and the private sector to fill the gaps left by the reduction in aid. This will require a fundamental change in development approach-shifting from dependence on external funding to a more self-sustaining, locally-driven model.
Kayastha holds a PhD degree in Journalism and Mass Communication
