Disaster Recovery Must Begin with Safe Ground

Lucky Chand

Providing shelter after a disaster is an immediate necessity. But a roof alone cannot secure people’s future. If the settlement itself remains exposed to danger, rebuilding does not reduce disaster risk; it merely leaves people waiting for the next disaster. The experience of Khalte in Rasuwa offers a stark lesson. A settlement established after the earthquake was devastated again by floods, showing that safe geography must be the first consideration in any resettlement plan.

On October 11, a landslide blocked the Budhi Gandaki River in Gorkha, triggering floods that damaged settlements, bridges and infrastructure. Residents in danger were urged to move to safer places. The question of resettling families affected by the devastating floods in August also remains unresolved. These repeated disasters make clear that Nepal’s disaster response cannot focus solely on rescue and relief.

Providing temporary shelter and financial assistance to affected families is the government’s responsibility. But such support cannot replace long-term resettlement. Returning families to dangerous locations, establishing settlements without adequate assessment or moving people elsewhere without providing a means to earn a living will only allow the same problems to recur. Sites for resettlement must be assessed for the risks of landslides, floods, river erosion and earthquakes, as well as access to roads, schools, health services, drinking water and employment.

Resettlement must involve the affected people. Leaving an ancestral home means more than losing land or a house; it can also mean losing social ties, cultural practices and a way of life. Decisions therefore require clear evidence of risk, transparent information about available alternatives and the consent of the people concerned. Identifying a safe site is not enough. The government must also ensure that families can build a dignified life there.

Local governments need maps, information and trained personnel to reduce disaster risks. Uncontrolled settlement and construction should be prevented in river corridors and landslide-prone areas. Early-warning systems must reach communities, with regular drills to help residents respond. Risk assessments for infrastructure projects must be more than a formality; they should be a mandatory condition for approving projects.

Nepal and the World Bank have signed an agreement to explore a catastrophe bond that could help mobilise funds quickly after a major earthquake. Such an initiative could help cover the costs of a disaster, but it cannot replace safe settlements, reliable early-warning systems or the management of high-risk areas. Preparedness and financial protection must advance together.

The success of reconstruction cannot be measured only by the number of houses built. The decisive question is whether those houses will remain safe when floods or landslides strike again. Only when resettlement includes risk assessment, safe locations, community participation and secure livelihoods can post-disaster reconstruction protect people from the next disaster.