The call for urgent and meaningful investment in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) has become urgent as climate change and disasters become more frequent and intense in Nepal.
With each passing year, we have been witnessing devastating floods, early monsoons, prolonged droughts, heatwaves, and erratic weather patterns.
The important aspect here is that these disasters not only destroy lives and livelihoods but also threaten Nepal’s economic and social progress.
Policy commitments Vs financial reality
Nepal’s policymakers are aware of these threats. Our country has developed progressive policies, including the Disaster Risk Reduction Strategic Action Plan (2018–2030) and the 16th National Development Plan (2024/25–2028/29), both of which delegate that DRR and CCA must be integrated into the planning and budgeting process of all levels of government.
Additionally, the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPA) provide detailed roadmaps. On paper, Nepal paints a nice picture. But the concern is, are these plans receiving the financial strength they need to implement?
Insights from ground level study
A recent study conducted by Mercy Corps in Sudurpaschim and Madhesh provinces gives us a reality check. The study tracked budget allocation and expenditure on DRR and CCA allocations and spending over five years across seven local governments.
The findings were stark: investments in DRR and CCA are inconsistent, underfunded, and often reactive. Local governments tend to prioritise short-term relief activities rather than long-term risk reduction and resilience building. But what we want is to build fire stations before any fire incidents are reported.
Take, for instance, the repeated rehabilitation of flood-damaged irrigation canals in Saptari — public money is spent year after year to rebuild the same structures without addressing the underlying vulnerabilities.
These efforts provide short-term relief, but what about building resilience? Examples show that long-term investments in flood prevention, resilient infrastructures, early warning systems, and climate-resilient livelihoods are there to a certain extent, but in many cases remain a distant dream.
There are, however, some of the best examples. The transition from an earthen to a cemented canal for the Buniyad Irrigation Project in Rautahat has been a game-changer for the local farming community. This upgrade serves hectares of land and improves crop production as well as increases food security.
It also provided access to a secure water supply and reduced vulnerability to floods and water shortages, as the new canal design was made in such a way that it also addresses drainage issues.
Similarly, the Sulav Irrigation Project is another example of the effective use of local resources for irrigation. This project irrigates 125 hectares of agricultural land. The project’s water source is a natural spring, and this natural reliability ensures a dependable foundation for sustained agricultural productivity. These projects have improved food security, reduced labor burdens, and increased household income — proving that targeted investment in DRR/CCA pays off.
But such cases are not the rule.
The study revealed a critical insight: while advisory frameworks for mainstreaming DRR into national and local plans exist, they lack legal implementation. As a result, implementation remains under-resourced. This failure to invest adequately in DRR and CCA has a human cost. The marginalised communities and the vulnerable populations living below the poverty line are the ones who suffer the most. With each disaster, they are forced to lose crops, livestock, homes, and income.
One of the major problems highlighted here is the lack of dedicated budget lines and standard classification for DRR and CCA activities in the majority of the local and provincial budgets. Even when funds are allocated, it is almost impossible to track them, mainly the budget for DRR.
Budget tagging for DRR and CCA remains ineffective, mainly at the local level, which has been the major cause of under-prioritisation and underreporting. The problem here is the lack of clear guidance, which makes it difficult to understand whether the investment is really spent on building climate and disaster resilience or just being used for general development activities.
Recommendations for resilient future
This trend needs to change. Nepal must prioritise DRR and CCA in its budget planning — not just as a development supplement but as a mandatory requirement in its national and local strategies. For this, it is important to create specific budget codes for DRR and effective tracking of CCA budgets. Most importantly, making it a legal obligation to use across all tiers of government. Along with this, there is a dire need to increase the proportion of national and provincial budgets dedicated to resilience-building based on disaster risk as well.
Shifting mindsets and mobilising resources
This is not an easy task. It requires a shift in mindset. What should be understood is that DRR and CCA investments are not expenses; rather, they safeguard our future losses. It is estimated globally that every $1 spent on DRR saves $4–$7 in post-disaster loss and recovery. And for climate-vulnerable countries like ours, the return on investment is even higher.
Private sector and citizen engagement
The responsibility lies not only on the government’s part, but every individual and private sector should be motivated and incentivised to invest in resilience. Even though our country has taken some steps in this direction through the Public-Private Partnership Act, green bond provisions, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mandates, the efforts are not implemented.
There is a huge opportunity to mobilise private capital towards a green economy, infrastructure, climate-smart agriculture, and risk-transfer mechanisms like insurance if they are incentivised and have a clear policy for it.
For all this, capacity building is essential. Taking into consideration that many local governments lack the expertise to integrate climate and disaster risk into their annual plans, investment in training, maintaining data, and technical assistance needs to be provided simultaneously along with financial investment.
Conclusion: Turning plans into action
The climate is changing; disaster events are becoming more frequent and severe. While Nepal has the right policies in place, Sudur Paschim and Madhesh and other communities across the country deserve not only the paper plans but also a planned and concrete investment for a safer and resilient future.
As we move along, it is high time for all levels of government to align their budgets with the promises they have made, as resilience starts from the budgetary allocations we make today and not in the workshops and seminars.
As global leaders gather in Geneva in the first week of June, for Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction (GPDRR), let’s move beyond plans. Let’s make DRR a legal obligation, not an optional choice. Ensure DRR efforts are inclusive, intersectional, and locally led. The path to resilience is clear. Now we must walk it together.
