Research On Disaster Risk Reduction And Penal Enforcement In Nepal
1. Misuse of Relief Goods in Koshi Floods (2017)
Facts:
During the Koshi river floods in eastern Nepal, local authorities were responsible for distributing relief goods to affected families. Reports indicated that some local officials and volunteers diverted rice, tents, and medical supplies to relatives or sold them in local markets.
Legal Basis:
Under DRRM Act, 2074, Section 89, misappropriation or obstruction of relief goods is punishable with fines or imprisonment.
Enforcement:
The District Disaster Management Committee reported the incident to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Several officials were summoned, and an administrative inquiry confirmed the misappropriation. Though criminal prosecution was not fully concluded in court, the legal basis allowed disciplinary action and potential prosecution.
Significance:
This case illustrates penal enforcement targeting corruption or misuse of relief materials, which directly undermines DRR efforts. It shows the law extends to both public officials and volunteers engaged in disaster management.
2. False Landslide Warning in Kavre (2019)
Facts:
In Kavrepalanchok district, a private organization circulated a landslide warning through social media and local radios without government verification. The warning caused panic, mass evacuations, and temporary school closures.
Legal Basis:
Section 87 of the DRRM Act penalizes false alarms or warnings that create panic or harm.
Enforcement:
The local police registered a case against the organization and the responsible individuals. Investigations revealed that there was no imminent landslide risk. The authorities warned media and social media managers about legal liability.
Significance:
This case emphasizes that false disaster warnings can carry criminal liability. Penal provisions act as a deterrent and protect the credibility of disaster early warning systems.
3. Negligence Leading to Flash Flood in Taplejung (2020)
Facts:
During a monsoon, a poorly maintained hydroelectric diversion channel overflowed, causing a flash flood that damaged homes and injured several people. Investigations found the responsible contractor and local authorities neglected safety inspections.
Legal Basis:
Under Section 86 of the DRRM Act, negligence contributing to disaster occurrence is punishable with fines up to NPR 500,000 or imprisonment up to 2 years.
Enforcement:
An administrative investigation recommended both criminal and civil liability. Local authorities filed charges against the contractor and responsible government officials for failing in disaster risk mitigation duties.
Significance:
Shows that structural and infrastructural negligence falls under DRR penal enforcement. This enforces accountability for preventive measures, not just emergency response.
4. Obstruction of Evacuation in Sindhupalchok Earthquake Preparedness Drill (2021)
Facts:
During a community earthquake preparedness drill, some local business owners blocked access to evacuation routes citing personal inconvenience. Their actions delayed the drill and endangered participants.
Legal Basis:
Section 88 of the DRRM Act provides penalties for obstructing government or committee directives related to disaster management.
Enforcement:
Local authorities issued warnings and fines to obstructing individuals. The case was documented as an example in government DRR training manuals.
Significance:
Illustrates that penal enforcement also extends to non-compliance with preventive directives, reinforcing discipline and civic responsibility in DRR.
5. Corporate Liability in Illegal Construction in Landslide-Prone Area (Ramechhap, 2022)
Facts:
A construction company built residential units on a hillside without proper slope stabilization or environmental assessment. Heavy rains triggered landslides that damaged multiple homes and roads.
Legal Basis:
Sections 86 and 89 of DRRM Act hold organizations and responsible persons liable for negligence causing disasters.
Enforcement:
The District Disaster Management Committee and the Ministry of Home Affairs held the company accountable. The company and its project manager faced potential criminal prosecution for failing to comply with disaster risk reduction norms.
Significance:
Highlights organizational accountability and the extension of penal provisions beyond individuals to corporate actors in DRR.
6. Delay in Emergency Response in Makwanpur Floods (2018)
Facts:
Heavy rains led to flooding in Makwanpur district. Some local officials delayed initiating evacuation and relief operations, resulting in property damage and injuries.
Legal Basis:
DRRM Act penalizes failure to act in accordance with disaster management responsibilities.
Enforcement:
Officials were reprimanded, and administrative charges were filed. This case was used in training sessions to emphasize timely compliance with DRR obligations.
Significance:
Demonstrates that penal provisions enforce timely action in disaster situations, crucial for minimizing risk and casualties.
Key Lessons from These Cases
DRRM Act penalizes misuse of relief goods, negligence, false alarms, obstruction, and non-compliance.
Both individuals and organizations can be held accountable.
Penal enforcement applies preventively (drills, compliance) and reactively (after disaster occurrence).
Real-world enforcement often involves administrative actions, warnings, and fines, though criminal prosecution is possible.
These cases show the emerging role of law in DRR in Nepal, bridging legal compliance with disaster risk mitigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments