Econ-ity » Blog Archives

Author Archives: Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Doing Business In Nepal: Ins and Outs of Opening a Private School in Nepal

Education Rules, 2002, and amendments following it necessitate presenting seventeen different documents to establish and run a private school in Nepal.  The process to prepare all these documents involves reaching out to a number of government offices to get approvals. This article intends to talk of the time and cost factor associated with it, at length. A snapshot of the private school registration process is presented below: School Registration Process

Firstly, a school needs to be registered as a company and acquire a certificate that proves successful registration of a company which takes around 3 days and requires a registration fee in accordance to capital invested. But similar to other legal procedures in place in Nepal, common men fail to comprehend the technicalities, and turn to a law professional.  One usually hires an external lawyer which could take up to 5 days for a charge of Rs.5000-10000 as lawyer consultant fee. After obtaining registration certificate from the Office of Company Registrar, Personal Account Number (PAN) registration is required which adds up one more day.  Next is to obtain a recommendation letter from VDC/municipality.

In order to ensure the so-called “friendly competition,” it is necessary to obtain letter of approval from two similar schools which adds up more than a week. If we dig down a little into this requirement, this holds the potential to creating a syndicate, and a cartel in the education system in the country. For a person running a company, the lesser the number of competitors, the higher the prospect of profits. When law requires any new entrant to get permission from the existing players, the existing players can very well collude and bar new entrants from entering the industry. With possible new entrants at check, the existing players can then manipulate the fees, facilities, teaching standards and everything else that they are responsible for providing.

Coming back to the registration process, when the DEO calls for letter of application, one needs to submit the application form which costs RS.1000 along with all other stipulated documents before end of Poush (December). Within three months of submission of form, the DEO sends a school inspector to inspect the doc­uments and infrastructure of the said school, the school management board and other facilities to be provided by the school, who then, submits the report to the DEO. Once the decision is made, the DEO calls the founder of the school to officially grant  permission to operate said school, 30 days prior to the commencement of new session.

Thenafter, one needs to make a certain amount of security deposit at one of the stipulated banks. After submission of the deposit slip, the DEO gives the permission to establish and run the school. The total time consumed to obtain all the documents is 23-25 days and an additional 3 months (of waiting for a process that is concluded in 1 day) to acquire permission from the DEO, and the total cost incurred to register a school is minimum Rs. 56,000 and increases upon the type of school and level being registered.

However, DEO does not inform those schools which have not been granted permission to operate. One needs to follow up with DEO to know the verdict and the reasons for not granting approval are also not specified.

Interviews with school-heads during the research saw a number of them reflecting on the cumbersome and generally long process of opening a school with a sense of need for change. Instead of approaching OCR, DEO, VDC/municipality, SMC in order to collect documents, it would rather be easy if the government followed a one stop policy and made SMC as the only institution to grant the permission. The procedure of having to obtain letters of approval from the VDC and other schools is the most complained about step by the applicants as it is very time consuming and having to take approval letter from three places deems unnecessary.  Plus, it takes three months for the DEO to give its decision. It is also necessary to clear out issues on why a school is being rejected as it gives direction to where the applicant needs to reform in order to apply next year.

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by:

पुनर्निर्माणको जिम्मा निजीक्षेत्रलाई

आर्थिक् अभियानमा मिति २०७२ जेठ १४ , बिहिबारमा छापिएको लेख ¦  सो लेख मा निर्देसित् हुन  यहा क्लिक गर्नुस्

नेपाल चेम्बर अफ कमर्शले आयोजना गरेको अन्तरक्रियामा वरिष्ठ अर्थविद्हरूले भौतिक संरचनाको पुनर्निर्माणसँगै सन्तुलित आर्थिक विकासमा पनि उत्तिकै ध्यान दिएर योजना बनाउनुपर्ने बताएका छन् । विनाशकारी भूकम्पपछि अर्थतन्त्रलाई क्रियाशील बनाउन विशेष रणनीति आवश्यक हुन्छ । यसका लागि निजीक्षेत्रले यस्तो बहस शुरू गर्नु सार्थक प्रयास हो । भूकम्पले विनाश मात्रै गरेको छैन, पुनर्निर्माणका लागि अवसरसमेत दिएको छ । यसमा सबैको सहमति भए पनि कसरी पुनर्निर्माणलाई अघि बढाउने भन्नेमा भने स्पष्ट खाका तयार हुन सकेको छैन । जेहास्, पुनर्निर्माणको अवसरलाई खेर जान दिनुहुँदैन । व्यर्थको बहस र विवाद गरेर यस अवसरलाई उपयोग गर्न सकिएन भने यो महान् ऐतिहासिक भूल हुनेछ र यसबाट नेपालले ठूलो मूल्य चुकाउनुपर्नेछ ।

पुनर्निर्माणको कसको नेतृत्वमा कसरी गर्ने भन्नेमा विवाद गरिरहनु पर्दैन । निश्चित रूपमा यसको जिम्मा निजीक्षेत्रलाई नै दिनुपर्छ । प्राकृतिक विपद्पछि विश्वका विभिन्न देशमा भएका पुनर्निर्माणमा निजीक्षेत्रले प्रमुख खेलेको पाइन्छ । सरकारले योजना, नीति बनाउनुपर्छ र त्यसअनुसार निजीक्षेत्रलाई पुनर्निर्माणको ठेक्का दिनुपर्छ । त्यस्तै विदेशी सहायताको ठेक्का पनि नेपालकै निजीक्षेत्रलाई दिनुपर्छ । यदि नेपालको निजीक्षेत्रले गर्न नसक्ने काम छ भने पनि नेपाली कम्पनीका सहायकका रूपमा मात्र विदेशी कम्पनीलाई काम गर्न दिनुपर्छ । अहिलेसम्मको प्रचलनमा यस्तो ठेक्का विदेशी कम्पनीलाई नै दिने र विदेशी कम्पनीले नेपाली ठेकेदारहरूलाई टुक्राटुक्रा काम गर्ने दिने चलन छ । तर, अब त्यसलाई बदल्नुपर्छ । यसो गर्दा नेपाली कम्पनीहरूको अनुभव र दक्षतामा अभिवृद्धि हुन्छ । त्यस्तै उनीहरूले नयाँ प्रविधिको उपयोग गर्न पनि सिक्छन् । त्यसो गर्दा नेपाली निर्माण कम्पनीहरूमा आत्मविश्वास बढ्न सक्छ र भोलिका दिनमा उनीहरूले नेपालमा मात्र होइन, विदेशमा समेत काम गर्ने अवसर पाउँछन् । यसबाट नेपालको सन्तुलित आर्थिक विकासमा योगदान पुग्छ ।

पुनर्निर्माण गर्दा सकेसम्म स्वदेशमै उत्पादन भएका निर्माण सामग्रीहरूको प्रयोग गर्नुपर्छ । विदेशी सामान प्रयोग गर्नुपरेमा त्यसको प्रोक्युरमेण्ट पनि नेपाली बजारबाटै गर्नुपर्छ । नेपाली उद्योगहरूले हालको अवस्थामा ऊर्जा अभावका कारण क्षमताअनुसार उत्पादन गर्न सकिरहेका छैनन् । त्यसैले उनीहरूलाई डेडिकेटेड फिडरमार्फत चौबीसै घण्टा विद्युत् आपूर्ति गरी पूर्णक्षमतामा चल्न दिनुपर्छ । पुनर्निर्माणका लागि विदेशबाट सामान मगाउनैपर्ने भए विदेशी कम्पनीलाई दिनु हुँदैन । नेपालकै निजीक्षेत्रलाई यस्तो जिम्मेवारी दिनुपर्छ । यसरी पुनर्निर्माणको जिम्मेवारी निजीक्षेत्रलाई दिँदा एकातिर नेपालीले कामको मौका पाउँछन्, बढी दक्ष बन्नेछन् भने अर्कातिर यसमा भावनात्मक सम्बन्ध पनि हुन्छ । यसले पनि पुनर्निर्माणमा मनोबल बढाउ“छ । तर, निजीक्षेत्रले गर्ने काम सबैमा इमानदारी हुन्छ भन्ने छैन । यसलाई रोक्न सरकारले आफ्नो नियमन र अनुगमन संयन्त्रलाई बलियो बनाउनुपर्छ ।

 

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by:

प्रजातन्त्र मास्छ राष्ट्रिय सरकारले

आर्थिक् अभियानमा मिति २०७२ जेठ १४ , बिहिबारमा छापिएको लेख ¦ सो लेख मा निर्देसित् हुन यहा क्लिक गर्नुस्

एमाओवादीका वरिष्ठ नेता डा. बाबुराम भट्टराई र सत्तासीन दलको प्रमुख घटक नेकपा एमालेका वरिष्ठ नेता झलनाथ खनालले भूकम्पबाट भएको महाविपत्तिको सामना गर्न राष्ट्रिय सरकार गठन गर्नुपर्ने आवाज उठाएका छन् । यसबाट दलहरूबीच सहमति कायम हुन सक्ने जस्तो देखिए पनि वस्तुतः यो प्रस्ताव ‘सत्ताप्राप्तिको खेल’ हो भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ । प्रजातन्त्रमा बहुमतको सरकार र बलियो प्रतिपक्षी चाहिन्छ । सरकारले गलत काम गर्दा  प्रतिपक्षीले औंलो ठड्याउनसमेत सक्छ । राष्ट्रिय सरकार प्रतिपक्षविहीन हुँदा झनै मनपरी हुन सक्छ । यहाँनेर अर्थशास्त्री एडम स्मिथको भनाइ सान्दर्भिक हुन्छ । उनले भनेका छन्, ‘उस्तै व्यवसाय गर्ने व्यापारीहरू जब एकै ठाउँमा बस्छन्, उनीहरू भोजभतेर र रमाइलो मात्र गर्दैनन्, उनीहरूको कुराको अन्त्य उपभोक्ता ठग्ने र मूल्यवृद्धि गर्ने निर्णयबाट हुन्छ ।’ उनको यस भनाइमा व्यापारीका ठाउँमा प्रतिस्पर्धी राजनीतिक नेताहरूलाई राखिदिने हो भने अहिले उठेको राष्ट्रिय सहमतिको सरकारको सही अर्थ लाग्छ । हुन पनि संविधान निर्माण र आर्थिक विकासका सवालमा कहिल्यै एक नभएका दलहरू अहिले सहमतिको राष्ट्रिय सरकारको आलाप अलापिरहेका छन् ।

यस्तो सरकार कर्मकाण्डी पाराको हुन्छ किनभने यस्तो सरकार सफल हुँदा जस कसले लिने र असफल भए त्यसको जिम्मेवारी कसले लिने भन्ने हुँदैन । त्यसैले सत्तामा पुगेका दलहरूले मिलेर काम गर्नुभन्दा एकअर्कालाई आरोपप्रत्यारोप लगाउने भएकाले किचलो मात्रै हुन्छ । उनीहरूलाई मिलेर काम गर्न अहिले पनि केहीले छेकेको छैन । त्यसैले यो सत्तालिप्सा र जनतालाई मूर्ख बनाउने कामबाहेक केही होइन ।

पूर्वप्रधानमन्त्रीहरूले पहिलो त आफूलाई देशको नेतृत्व दिनुपर्छ भन्ने पूर्वाग्रहका साथ यस्ता भनाइ सार्वजनिक गरेको देखिन्छ । दोस्रो ‘लोकप्रियता’का लागि यी भनाइ आएको देख्न सकिन्छ । तर, पुनर्निर्माणका लागि राष्ट्रिय सरकार गठन गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने तर्क कुनै तर्क नै भएन । त्यो त कुतर्क भयो । पुनर्निर्माणको काम यस्तो प्रजातान्त्रिक वातावरणमा हुनुपर्छ, जहाँ सरकारले गरेका काम वा निर्णयहरूलाई सही बनाउन बलियो प्रतिपक्षीसहितको प्रजातान्त्रिक अङ्गहरूले काम गरून् । तर, पुनर्निर्माणका निहुँ गर्दै ‘राष्ट्रिय सरकार’को निहुँमा केही दलहरूको सिण्डिकेट लागू गर्ने कुरा कुनै हालतमा पनि मान्य हुन सक्दैन । जसरी स्थानीय निकायहरूमा भएको सर्वदलीय संयन्त्र भ्रष्टाचारको अखडा भएको छ, राष्ट्रिय सरकारको नाममा केही दलको संयन्त्र केन्द्रमा पनि बन्यो भने त्यो स्थानीय संयन्त्रको फोटोकपी हुनेछ । पुनर्निर्माणका लागि आउन लागेको ठूलो रकममा ¥याल चुहाएर ठूला नेताहरूले राष्ट्रिय सरकारको वकालत गरेको हुनसक्ने प्रबल सम्भावना छ ।

राष्ट्रनिर्माण विधिसम्मत ढङ्गले अघि बढ्दा नै हुन्छ । नेपालमा हामीले तय गरेको शासनप्रणालीको विधि भनेको प्रजातान्त्रिक विधि हो । प्रजातन्त्रमा बहुमतको सरकारले शासन गर्छ, उसले गरेको कामको जस अपजस पनि उसैले लिन्छ । उसले नराम्रो काम गर्न लाग्यो भने विपक्षी दल, नागरिक समाज, मिडियाले खबरदारी गर्छन् । तर, राष्ट्रिय सरकार  बनाएर दलहरूको सिण्डिकेट लाद्दै विपक्षी, नागरिक समाजलगायतका प्रजातान्त्रिक शक्तिहरूलाई निमिट्यान्न पार्न खोज्नु हु“दैन । त्यसले पुनर्निर्माण होइन, विनिर्माण निम्त्याउ“छ, विकास होइन, विनाश निम्त्याउँछ ।

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by:

Rebuilding trust

The following article was originally published on 15 May, 2015. Please click here to be directed to the original post.
‘Fundraising’ has been a common response to show empathy towards earthquake victims and therefore has come to be equated with ‘patriotism’, especially among Nepali communities overseas. A number of gatherings are happening across the world to generate funds for Nepal. However, donors are keen to know how the money is going to ‘reach’ the needy amidst the controversy around the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (PMDRF). I would label the failure to make earthquake funds effective a product of diminishing public trust in governance. A number of factors are at play.As a consequence of opening up of market and society after the introduction of democracy in 1990s, the Nepali government started to lose its control over major societal and economic activities. In other words, the dark sides of representative democracy have come to overshadow its brighter aspects. The regulatory capacity of government has been eroding by the day as even basic social services such as health and education have been left to private sector. The ball of advocacy and capacity building has been thrown firmly in the court of nongovernmental organizations. People have seen this shift in responsibility as the government’s incapability and, therefore, the PMDRF has also been increasingly questioned over the past few weeks.
 The ‘trust’ issue with PMDRF should be viewed alongside the ‘government’ vs ‘governance’ debate. Government is a product of politics and mainly refers to the executive in general and the head of government in particular. Gerry Stoker calls government a formal and institutional process that operates at the level of nation-state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action. In many countries including the UK, therefore, people understand the government as Blair or Cameron government. We also have a similar custom in Nepal. A slightly broader understanding of government covers the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.But governance is broader and takes into account networks, markets and partnerships as its integral elements. In contrast to government, it is a product of public administration. R.A.W. Rhodes defines governance as a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing, or a changed condition of ordered rule, or a new method by which the society is governed. In a broader sense, governance not only covers government but also deals with how the government interacts with other actors—such as the private and not-for-profit sectors in the society.As growing distrust has been expressed over the functioning of PMDRF, Nepali politicians have failed to explain the notion of governance to their electorate. Despite a severe democratic deficit in the country in the last 25 years, particularly at the local level, people have been relying on ‘governance’ rather than ‘government’. But we have not been able to measure people’s trust in government as compared to governance arrangements.

Geert Bouckaert has identified at least three clusters of trust: society’s trust in public sector; the public sector’s trust in society; and trust within the public sector. Recent discourse over the channelization of PMDRF suggests ‘distrust’ in all of these domains. Firstly, Nepali society—both domestic and diaspora—has increasingly expressed dissatisfaction over PMDRF because it regards the public sector as corrupt and inefficient. As an alternative, a lot of illegal routes have been utilized to provide relief funds.

Secondly, public sector itself does not fully trust many societal initiatives. From this perspective, government authorities believe that private and non-governmental initiatives always try to avoid or refuse ‘regulation’. An example of this kind of trust deficit is the government’s recent decision to use the banking system to apply additional controls over donated funds.

Thirdly, there has been a growing distrust in the public sector because of its own mechanisms and processes. Public authorities including senior civil servants constantly act against national rules and regulations. (Recently, a government Joint Secretary expressed mistrust of the governance system.) Coordination problems among governmental organizations in the aftermath of the earthquake, particularly between Nepal Army and Ministry of Home Affairs, have bred more distrust. Our heavy process orientation and Weberian bureaucracy are other examples of how public sector is itself fostering mistrust of governance.

However, some attempts have been made of late to increase trust in governance over the last few weeks. For example, Swarnim Wagle, a member of National Planning Commission, released a note on what is and is not PMDRF, so as to enhance public trust on utilization of earthquake funds; Rabindra Mishra, a journalist and nongovernmental activist, asserts that his charity organization, Help Nepal Network, will cover administrative costs in handling of earthquake relief by itself; another potent article by Amit Dhakal on setopati.com highlighted how belief in governance can foster patriotism; Sukhdev Shah, writing in Republica, also tried to explain ways to increase trust in governance.

Moreover, the chaos of earthquake has been seen as an opportunity to build our nation from ground up, by the likes of Baburam Bhattarai, a former premier. But first we need to reform our liberal policies by adding additional and tight regulatory provisions, to better regulate both the public and private sectors. The role of government has certainly increased in terms of providing services, but it also needs to expand its regulatory reach. A comprehensive public sector reform, therefore, is the need of the hour.

In the age of network, partnership and collaboration, the government actors should be fully aware of the potential of private sector and not-for-profit sector. Unless all of these sectors work together for a single objective, the cloud of mistrust will only grow darker. The PMDRF is again a case in point. But even the darkest cloud, they say, has a silver lining. That will be the case if the prevailing trust deficit can be used to bring about sweeping reforms in governance.

 

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by:

Trust Deficit

The following article was published on May 28, 2015 in Republica. Please click here to be directed to the original article.

‘Fundraising’ has been a common response to show empathy towards earthquake victims and therefore has come to be equated with ‘patriotism’, especially among Nepali communities overseas. A number of gatherings are happening across the world to generate funds for Nepal. However, donors are keen to know how the money is going to ‘reach’ the needy amidst the controversy around the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (PMDRF). I would label the failure to make earthquake funds effective a product of diminishing public trust in governance. A number of factors are at play.

As a consequence of opening up of market and society after the introduction of democracy in 1990s, the Nepali government started to lose its control over major societal and economic activities. In other words, the dark sides of representative democracy have come to overshadow its brighter aspects. The regulatory capacity of government has been eroding by the day as even basic social services such as health and education have been left to private sector. The ball of advocacy and capacity building has been thrown firmly in the court of nongovernmental organizations. People have seen this shift in responsibility as the government’s incapability and, therefore, the PMDRF has also been increasingly questioned over the past few weeks.
 The ‘trust’ issue with PMDRF should be viewed alongside the ‘government’ vs ‘governance’ debate. Government is a product of politics and mainly refers to the executive in general and the head of government in particular. Gerry Stoker calls government a formal and institutional process that operates at the level of nation-state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action. In many countries including the UK, therefore, people understand the government as Blair or Cameron government. We also have a similar custom in Nepal. A slightly broader understanding of government covers the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.But governance is broader and takes into account networks, markets and partnerships as its integral elements. In contrast to government, it is a product of public administration. R.A.W. Rhodes defines governance as a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing, or a changed condition of ordered rule, or a new method by which the society is governed. In a broader sense, governance not only covers government but also deals with how the government interacts with other actors—such as the private and not-for-profit sectors in the society.As growing distrust has been expressed over the functioning of PMDRF, Nepali politicians have failed to explain the notion of governance to their electorate. Despite a severe democratic deficit in the country in the last 25 years, particularly at the local level, people have been relying on ‘governance’ rather than ‘government’. But we have not been able to measure people’s trust in government as compared to governance arrangements.

Geert Bouckaert has identified at least three clusters of trust: society’s trust in public sector; the public sector’s trust in society; and trust within the public sector. Recent discourse over the channelization of PMDRF suggests ‘distrust’ in all of these domains. Firstly, Nepali society—both domestic and diaspora—has increasingly expressed dissatisfaction over PMDRF because it regards the public sector as corrupt and inefficient. As an alternative, a lot of illegal routes have been utilized to provide relief funds.

Secondly, public sector itself does not fully trust many societal initiatives. From this perspective, government authorities believe that private and non-governmental initiatives always try to avoid or refuse ‘regulation’. An example of this kind of trust deficit is the government’s recent decision to use the banking system to apply additional controls over donated funds.

Thirdly, there has been a growing distrust in the public sector because of its own mechanisms and processes. Public authorities including senior civil servants constantly act against national rules and regulations. (Recently, a government Joint Secretary expressed mistrust of the governance system.) Coordination problems among governmental organizations in the aftermath of the earthquake, particularly between Nepal Army and Ministry of Home Affairs, have bred more distrust. Our heavy process orientation and Weberian bureaucracy are other examples of how public sector is itself fostering mistrust of governance.

However, some attempts have been made of late to increase trust in governance over the last few weeks. For example, Swarnim Wagle, a member of National Planning Commission, released a note on what is and is not PMDRF, so as to enhance public trust on utilization of earthquake funds; Rabindra Mishra, a journalist and nongovernmental activist, asserts that his charity organization, Help Nepal Network, will cover administrative costs in handling of earthquake relief by itself; another potent article by Amit Dhakal on setopati.com highlighted how belief in governance can foster patriotism; Sukhdev Shah, writing in Republica, also tried to explain ways to increase trust in governance.

Moreover, the chaos of earthquake has been seen as an opportunity to build our nation from ground up, by the likes of Baburam Bhattarai, a former premier. But first we need to reform our liberal policies by adding additional and tight regulatory provisions, to better regulate both the public and private sectors. The role of government has certainly increased in terms of providing services, but it also needs to expand its regulatory reach. A comprehensive public sector reform, therefore, is the need of the hour.

In the age of network, partnership and collaboration, the government actors should be fully aware of the potential of private sector and not-for-profit sector. Unless all of these sectors work together for a single objective, the cloud of mistrust will only grow darker. The PMDRF is again a case in point. But even the darkest cloud, they say, has a silver lining. That will be the case if the prevailing trust deficit can be used to bring about sweeping reforms in governance.

 

 

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by:

Only 15 per cent of $423 million sought received so far

The following article was originally published on May 14, 2015 in The Himalayan Times. Please click here to be directed to the original post.

United Nations Resident Coordinator in Nepal Jamie McGoldrick today said Nepal Earthquake Flash Appeal for $423 million got responses only for 15 per cent of the amount sought from the donors and international community today.

Speaking at a press conference, McGoldrick said his office would intensify consultations with the donor agencies and international community in the next few days to shore up support for Nepal’s earthquake victims. When asked why there had been lukewarm response to the UN and its humanitarian partners’ Flash Appeal for Nepal’s quake victims, McGoldrick said one reason could be that the agencies involved in search and rescue operation were about to complete their assigned tasks.

Nepal’s former permanent representative to the United Nations Jayraj Acharya said the UN Flash Appeal failed to get encouraging response from the donor agencies and international community because of its weak campaign and Government of Nepal’s weak credibility in mobilising relief materials. “UN bureaucracy is not much different from ours as far as its campaigns are concerned. UN’s role in mobilising support for quake victims in Haiti was not very effective,” he said. Acharya said government’s insistence on carrying out relief works through one window system also did not go well with the donors and international community.

“Donors want their money to go directly to the needy people. They do not want cumbersome distribution of relief materials. They do not want three or four authorities endorsing the relief distribution process,” he added. Nepal’s former ambassador to India Bhesh Bahadur Thapa said donors’ tendency to take direct credit for their assistance could be one reason why UN Flash Appeal failed to get encouraging response from the donors and international community for Nepal’s quake victims. “We can see international community’s prompt bilateral response in the search, rescue and relief operation,” he said and added that the donors wanted to take credit for their assistance and therefore they were more interested to give bilateral assistance than putting their money into a UN fund. “When a country puts its money into a UN fund, people cannot easily see which country made what contribution and this is the reason countries are not very eager to commit their assistance to a UN fund,” Thapa added.

McGoldrick said the international community, the Government of Nepal and local communities were carrying out search, rescue and relief works but ferrying relief materials to far flung areas of 14 worst affected districts was becoming difficult due to difficult terrain. The April 25 earthquake and major aftershocks have only worsened the quake victims’ problems, he added. McGoldrick said the humanitarian assistance providers also wanted to ensure that the quake victims received adequate relief supplies in their own areas so that they do not lose a chance to grow future crops in their own areas. “If the quake victims fail to grow crops, then they may rely on international assistance for relatively longer period.”

 

 

Deekshya Nakarmi

About Deekshya Nakarmi

Deekshya Nakarmi is Communications and Outreach Assistant at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation. She is a student of Development Studies.

Published by: