Submit your Article

Each monsoon season, Nepal faces recurring severe impacts from natural hazards. Landslides in hilly regions and river overflows destroy roads, settlements, and livelihoods, displacing thousands of families every year. These occurrences are typically referred to as ‘natural disasters’, implying that the resulting damage is an unavoidable consequence of rugged terrain and extreme weather conditions. However, this way of looking at the problem hides and oversimplifies it. While the hazards Nepal faces are natural, the scale and severity of the resulting disasters are shaped primarily by human exposure and decisions about where and how we build, live, and govern. It is important for both scientific analysis and policymaking to know the difference between a hazard and a disaster. Flooding, a landslide, a glacial lake outburst, a seismic tremor, or extreme rainfall are all examples of natural hazards. When these hazards hit populations that are already vulnerable, systems that aren't prepared, and institutions that can’t handle or absorb the effects, a disaster occurs. Due to the geographic location, Nepal is tectonically active, has steep slopes, and has delicate ecological conditions. This makes the country naturally prone to hazards. But the extent of the disaster depends on the pattern of settlement, land-use regulations, investment in preparedness and response, and the resilience of governance.  In this context, the narrative of a natural disaster is not complete, and using this kind of rhetoric can sometimes make people think that disasters are unavoidable or completely out of human control. This kind of framing again obscures the role of governance, policy decisions, development patterns, and resource capacity in shaping the results. It is therefore critical to know the distinction between a hazard and a disaster. Why ‘not natural’? Available data demonstrate that disasters in Nepal are driven by natural hazards, but their impacts are shaped by Nepal’s physical and social systems, which are very exposed and vulnerable. According to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, floods alone affected more than 8m people between 2000 and 2023. From 1992 to 2021, landslides and floods killed almost 7,000 people. Landslides killed 3,692 people, and floods killed 3,201 people. During the monsoon of 2024, heavy rain caused more than 132 major landslides, killing 236 people and forcing more than 8,400 people to leave their homes in several provinces, from Koshi to Sudurpaschim.  According to weather data, several Hill districts have had the most rain during the monsoon season since 1970, which is a sign of statistically extreme events. The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) says that the rain in late September 2024 alone cost the economy Rs 46.68bn. More than 83 percent of these losses were to physical infrastructure, such as roads and highways suffered damage to the tune of Rs 28bn (approx), and hydropower facilities like the Upper Tamakoshi suffered losses worth more than Rs 30bn. The Tribhuvan International Airport station in Kathmandu saw the most rain in over 20 years, with 239.7 millimeters falling in just 24 hours. The disaster left nearly 250 people dead and displaced more than 10,000 families, underscoring how vulnerable Nepal’s systems remain during extreme weather events. Earthquakes remain the highest-priority hazard in Nepal due to their catastrophic potential. The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, which is one of the worst disasters in over a century, resulted in approximately 9,000 deaths, 22,000 injuries, and damage to or destruction of around 1m houses. The World Bank report says that the economic loss was about $7bn, which was about one-third of Nepal’s GDP at the time. In 2023, yet another earthquake of magnitude 5.6 struck Jajarkot and Rukum West, which caused more than 157 fatalities. Both these towns were still recovering from the 2015 earthquake, even though monitoring systems had advanced. This shows that they were still vulnerable in terms of their structure and institutions. Climate change further magnifies this risk by increasing both the frequency and the intensity of extreme events. According to the World Meteorological Organization, Nepal's average temperatures are rising faster than the global average, at 0.66°C per year. This is happening faster in high-mountain areas. There are more than 400 glacial lakes that could be dangerous, and the risk of outburst floods is growing with glacier retreat. Research from the Integrated Center for Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in 2023 estimated that Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) could affect more than 2 million people downstream in the coming decades. These disasters persist due to deeper systemic issues concerning structural and governance conditions. Around 78 percent of Nepal’s population lives in rural areas where critical infrastructure is insufficient to withstand hazards. According to the Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC), over 70 percent of buildings in Nepal are constructed without seismic code compliance. Rapid urbanization has pushed informal settlements onto riverbanks, floodplains, and landslide-prone slopes, particularly in Kathmandu Valley, where more than one-third of settlements face moderate to high exposure. Despite this, many local governments still lack sufficient technical staff, resources, geospatial infrastructure, and expertise to incorporate hazard information into land-use decisions. This reinforces the governance gaps. Although the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (2017) marked progress, implementation remains weak. NDRRMA reported that only about 20 percent of local governments have up-to-date disaster preparedness plans, and fewer than seven percent use hazard maps for local planning.  In 2021 alone, Nepal recorded more than Rs 33bn in economic losses from disasters. Yet less than five percent of total disaster-related spending was allocated toward mitigation efforts. Investment remains heavily concentrated in post-disaster response rather than prevention, highlighting a reactive rather than a proactive approach and creating a reinforcing feedback loop. Developing risk-informed systems Clearly, these patterns demonstrate that disasters in Nepal are not purely natural in their consequences, as hazards are inevitable given the country’s geographic characteristics and monsoon climate. The scale of destruction, however, is shaped by development choices, governance gaps, and systems that do not prioritize resilience. If Nepal is to change this trajectory, it requires several critical shifts, most importantly toward risk-informed development at all levels. A starting point is the systematic use of risk mapping to guide all forms of development. Hazard, exposure, and vulnerability assessments should inform where houses, schools, bridges, and roads are sited, rather than being an afterthought. There should be enforcement of resilient design, especially in seismic and landslide-prone regions where building codes are often poorly enforced. Nature-based solutions also represent an essential pathway toward long-term resilience, especially in a country like Nepal, where ecosystems play a direct role in many indigenous practices.  Forest cover, wetlands, and river corridors serve as natural buffers that reduce the impact of floods and landslides. Their restoration is not just ecological but necessary for long-term resilience. Local knowledge and modern technology must be brought together. Communities possess valuable insights into seasonal flows, slope instability, and the history of past disasters. When this knowledge is combined with advanced geospatial analysis and remote sensing techniques, such as satellite-based monitoring, LiDAR terrain mapping, interferometric SAR, and other earth observation tools, Nepal can anticipate risks more accurately and plan more effectively. Social inclusion must be central to these efforts. Women, Dalits, Indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups are often the most affected by disasters, yet their voices are frequently left out of planning and preparedness. Building resilience requires full participation and equity. Final thought When a flood sweeps away a village or a landslide cuts off a highway, it is easy to blame nature. But disasters in Nepal are more than natural hazards; they are the result of where we build, how we plan, and whom we prioritize. Natural hazards are inevitable, but disasters do not have to be. To address this, disaster risk reduction must move from the margins to the very core of development decisions. Only then can Nepal look forward to a future where monsoons, rivers, and mountains are lived with rather than feared. The hazards will always be part of our landscape, but devastation does not have to be.