When Disaster Comes with Warning, Preparedness Becomes a Test of State Accountability

Nepal has yet to fully recover from the devastation along the Bhotekoshi and Trishuli corridors. The search for missing people is not over, displaced families have not fully returned to normal life, roads and bridges remain disrupted in several areas, and some affected communities continue to struggle with food supplies and basic services. Now, forecasts are again pointing to the possibility of heavy rainfall. This time, however, the state has one crucial advantage: advance warning. Any preventable loss of life can therefore no longer be attributed solely to the forces of nature.

Weather forecasts are never absolutely certain. It may not be possible to predict precisely where the heaviest rain will fall, how rapidly a river will rise or exactly when a landslide will occur. But risk warnings provide sufficient grounds for preventive action. The responsibility of the state is not to wait and see whether every forecast proves correct. It is to prepare for the worst credible scenario. Preparations may occasionally prove unnecessary, but lives lost because of inadequate preparation cannot be recovered.

Federal, provincial and local governments must now operate not as separate administrative structures but as parts of an integrated emergency mechanism. Settlements along vulnerable rivers, landslide-prone areas, fragile bridges, highways and temporary shelters must be identified immediately. Where necessary, people should be relocated before disaster strikes, not after communities have been cut off. Rescue teams, boats, ropes, specialized equipment, ambulances, medical personnel, medicines, drinking water, food and temporary shelters must be positioned according to clearly defined operational plans reaching down to the local level.

One of Nepal’s persistent weaknesses is that warnings often fail to reach the people who actually face the danger. A weather bulletin issued in Kathmandu saves lives only when a family in a remote mountain village receives it in time, understands it and knows what action to take. Mobile alerts, local radio, police, local governments, schools, health institutions and community volunteers should therefore be integrated into a single warning network. Simply telling citizens to “remain alert” is not enough. They need to know which areas are at risk, where to evacuate, which roads to avoid and whom to contact in an emergency.

The Bhotekoshi disaster has delivered another difficult lesson: Nepal’s disaster management system remains too focused on rescue and relief rather than risk reduction. Building infrastructure inside natural river corridors, cutting roads through fragile terrain without adequate protection, constructing bridges without understanding entire watersheds and then rebuilding the same structures in the same vulnerable manner after every disaster cannot continue. Reconstruction should not mean reproducing what was destroyed. It should mean building infrastructure capable of surviving the next disaster.

Transport management also requires immediate attention. During periods of extreme rainfall risk, authorities should not hesitate to temporarily restrict night travel, public transport along highly vulnerable highways or movement through areas exposed to floods and landslides. A few hours of inconvenience cannot be weighed against human life. Keeping a road open is not an achievement if travelling on it is unsafe. The real measure of effective administration is whether movement can be managed safely.

Citizens, too, have responsibilities. Ignoring official warnings, approaching swollen rivers out of curiosity, attempting to cross closed roads or undertaking unnecessary journeys through high-risk areas places additional pressure on already stretched rescue services. Families can prepare essential medicines, drinking water, food, flashlights, communication devices and important documents in advance. They should also have a basic plan for moving children, senior citizens, pregnant women, persons with disabilities and people requiring regular medical care to safer locations.

The media carries an equally important responsibility. Uncertainty in weather forecasting should not be transformed into panic, but neither should genuine risks be normalized or minimized. Journalism during a disaster must provide citizens with verified, practical and timely information based on official warnings, scientific forecasts and confirmed local conditions. Unverified videos, old footage presented as current and exaggerated claims can lead people to make dangerous decisions. Information itself must become part of the rescue system rather than another source of confusion.

The recent disaster has already forced Nepal to pay a heavy price for weaknesses in preparedness. The next spell of severe weather will test whether the state has learned from those failures. Nature cannot be controlled, but the transformation of natural hazards into large-scale human tragedy can often be reduced. When credible warnings are available but preparations are not made, the failure is no longer merely natural. It becomes a failure of governance.

The success of the state during the next period of heavy rainfall should therefore not be measured by how much rain falls or how many helicopters are deployed afterward. It should be measured by how many lives are protected before the emergency begins. Moving vulnerable communities before rivers rise is better governance than launching rescue operations after they are trapped. Preventing displacement is better disaster management than distributing relief after families have lost everything. Reducing the number of people exposed to danger is more meaningful than counting casualties afterward.

Nepal must now move from a state that primarily responds after disaster strikes to one that protects its citizens before disaster becomes tragedy. Advance warning creates advance responsibility. When the danger is known, preparedness is no longer optional. It is the most basic test of accountable government.