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.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world,” said Nelson Mandela. But in Nepal, education has become more about business than learning.

It is often said that education and health are the most profitable sectors. This is because everyone wants a better life. However, this has also led to problems. Government schools have trained teachers, but many schools are not performing well.

In colleges, qualified teachers are present, but some are not fully committed. Due to low salaries, they spend more time teaching in private institutions. This affects students in public institutions.

Because of this, families who can afford it send their children abroad or to expensive private schools. Students, on the other hand, are also changing. Many are no longer interested in deep learning. Instead of reading full books, they look for shortcuts.

Bulky textbooks with detailed commentaries and analytical content are often left untouched in bookstores and libraries. These days, many students prefer shortcuts—relying on guides and brief handouts just to pass exams. At the same time, some institutes in the market are engaged in writing theses for students in exchange for money. Such practices seriously undermine the quality and integrity of education. These thesis-writing centers and guidebook-based learning practices should also be strictly regulated, if not banned altogether. Still, guides at the school level should be banned to encourage students to rely on proper textbooks and develop conceptual learning.

In this context, recent steps taken by Education Minister Sasmit Pokharel offer some hope. His efforts to maintain the academic calendar, conduct exams on time, and publish results promptly are positive moves. The plan to publish the 10th board exam results within a month, as well as the decision to ban political activities and student political groups in colleges and universities, are important steps. These actions will not only improve academic credibility but also help create a better and more productive environment in educational institutions.

Today, students talk more about politics than studies. Those connected to political groups are seen as powerful, even if they are not good in academics. This creates division and distracts students from education.

The decision to allow students to study up to bachelor’s level without citizenship is also very positive. Education should be for everyone. However, more work is needed. The Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2018 says that private schools must provide some seats for poor students.

Time to energize local levels

Nepal’s Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2018 provides that 10 percent of seats must be reserved for scholarship in schools with up to 500 students, 12 percent in schools with up to 800 students, and 15 percent in schools with more than 800 students. This legal provision should be strictly enforced. However, many boarding schools have yet to implement this requirement.

Local governments also need to do more. They should keep proper records of how many children are in school and how many are not. They should work to reduce dropouts. Teaching in local languages at early levels can help children learn better.

Politics in government schools

School Management Committees (SMCs) were created to improve schools, but some are accused of favoritism and misuse of power. It is alleged that many SMCs prioritize appointing their near and dear ones instead of selecting the most competent and deserving candidates. They are also accused of interference in school affairs, often treating the institution as their personal domain. This needs to be corrected.  Many people believe that SMCs have done more harm than good, causing disruption rather than bringing meaningful change.

There are other areas for improvement.

Principals should be selected through open competition, not just seniority. Teachers should get regular training. Government teachers should focus only on their schools and avoid private tutoring. The School Improvement Plan (SIP), which every school is required to prepare, has largely remained limited to paper and has not been effectively implemented in practice. There should be no political interference in the appointment of principals, and selection should be based solely on merit.

Education is a shared responsibility of teachers, students, and society. If all work together, Nepal’s education system can improve.

Way forward

The time has come to focus on quality, not profit. Nepal’s Education Minister, Sashmit Pokhrel, has shown courage by working to maintain the academic calendar.

In addition, it is high time to break the hold of private education mafias. The ministry should go further by ensuring that private schools strictly follow government rules, provide teachers with salaries and benefits, at least, comparable to government standards, and charge fees that are affordable for students. There must be stronger monitoring of private education operators so that they do not function like unruly forces without accountability.

Moreover, Nepal’s education system lacks a proper balance between theory and practice. Students graduating with degrees often have strong theoretical knowledge but lack the skills to apply it in real-life situations. Therefore, Nepal’s education system should prioritize practical exposure and employment-oriented learning to make education more useful and job-ready.

Nepal’s education system should go beyond teaching that food is essential for survival; it should also include practical life skills such as cooking.

It is high time we changed the narrative that education and health are the most profitable businesses in Nepal. They should be seen first and foremost as essential public services.

[email protected]

The author is a faculty member of Law at Manmohan Technical University, Biratnagar 

Nepal is changing. With the formation of a new, strong cabinet, the country is entering a fresh phase of policy reform, infrastructure investment, banking expansion and accelerating urban growth. Ministers have spoken of modernising public services, attracting foreign capital and building the foundations of a prosperous nation. Yet amid this momentum, one critical sector continues to operate in near-total regulatory darkness, a sector that quietly underpins every bank loan, every land deal, every infrastructure project and every insurance claim in the country: property valuation. 

I have spent years in the field as a professional valuer. What I have witnessed is not merely a gap in policy, it is a structural vulnerability that exposes Nepal’s entire financial architecture to systemic risk. I have catalogued seventeen major failings in Nepal’s current valuation framework and issued a ten-point reform agenda directed at the incoming government. 

The analysis has drawn significant attention from banking professionals, urban planners and policy experts across the country. 

A profession without a rulebook 

The most fundamental problem, Bhattarai argues, is deceptively simple: Nepal has no Valuation Act. Unlike most developed and many developing economies, there is no legislation governing who may call themselves a property valuer, how they must practise or what standards they must uphold. The profession is entirely unregulated. 

This absence of legal framework produces a cascade of dysfunction. Banks continue to rely on the antiquated 70:30 valuation method, a blunt instrument that fails to reflect actual market dynamics. The same piece of land or property will carry entirely different values depending on the context: one figure for a mortgage, another for taxation, a third for government compulsory acquisition, a fourth for insurance and yet another if the property is to be sold under forced-sale conditions. 

This multiplicity of values for the same asset is not a technicality. It creates real-world consequences: borrowers are misled, lenders are exposed and the state loses revenue it is legally owed.

Nepal’s valuation sector currently faces a complex web of structural, ethical, and technical challenges that the government must urgently address. At the foundational level, the industry suffers from a total lack of legislative oversight; there is no Valuation Act to govern the profession, leaving it entirely unregulated without national licensing examinations or mandatory continuing professional development. 

This legislative vacuum is mirrored in the technical sphere, where the absence of a national property transaction database or automated digital data systems forces banks to rely on the outdated 70:30 valuation approach. Furthermore, the lack of professional liability or indemnity insurance leaves both practitioners and the broader financial system exposed to significant risk.

The integrity of the market is further compromised by inconsistent standards and external pressures. Currently, the same property often carries different values depending on the purpose, while government-mandated ‘minimum land values’ and compulsory acquisition compensations frequently sit well below actual market prices, leading to reduced tax revenue and public dissatisfaction. Within the mortgage sector, the routine application of forced sale values over true market values—combined with unhealthy fee competition and the absence of minimum fee guidelines—erodes professional standards. 

These systemic weaknesses are often exploited, with lenders and borrowers pressuring valuers to match desired loan amounts, alongside persistent commission practices and political interference. Ultimately, this culture of overvaluation and distorted compensation not only elevates banking risk but also contributes directly to the rise of non-performing assets across the country.

The banking system’s hidden exposure 

Perhaps the most alarming dimension of my analysis concerns Nepal’s banks. Property valuation is the cornerstone of collateral-based lending which accounts for a vast majority of credit extended in Nepal. When valuations are inflated, banks extend loans against assets that cannot support them. When borrowers default, the forced-sale recovery falls short, leaving lenders nursing losses and contributing to the country’s already-elevated level of non-performing assets. 

The problem is compounded by what Bhattarai describes as an informal culture of influence: some banks and borrowers apply pressure on valuers to produce figures that support the loan amount requested, rather than reflecting genuine market conditions. Without professional regulation, without the threat of licence revocation or professional sanction, individual valuers have little institutional protection against such pressure. 

There is also no national database of actual property transactions. Without transparent, verified sales data, valuers are forced to rely on estimates, hearsay or out-of-date benchmarks. This informational vacuum makes accurate, independent valuation structurally difficult even for those who wish to practise with integrity.

To address these systemic challenges, a comprehensive ten-point agenda for reform is proposed to modernize Nepal’s valuation sector. The cornerstone of this initiative is the introduction of a Valuation Act of Nepal, which would provide the necessary legal framework to establish a Valuation Council or Regulatory Authority. This body would be responsible for making value licensing mandatory, ensuring no individual practices without proven competence. To bring local practices up to global benchmarks, the agenda calls for the implementation of Nepal Valuation Standards aligned with the International Valuation Standards (IVS). 

Furthermore, to eliminate the current ‘race to the bottom’ regarding quality, the government should establish minimum valuation fee guidelines and introduce professional indemnity insurance to protect clients and ensure financial accountability.

In addition to regulatory shifts, the agenda emphasizes a technological and data-driven overhaul of the financial system. This includes developing a National Property Transaction Database to create a transparent record of actual sales and modernizing the mortgage system by replacing the outdated 70:30 method with market-reflective approaches. To support human expertise and reduce errors, the plan advocates for the development of Automated Valuation Models (AVM) and the creation of a Central Valuation Record System for banks. 

These digital tools allow financial institutions to systematically identify inconsistencies and overvaluations, ultimately stabilizing the economy and restoring professional integrity to the field.

‘Reform is not optional’ 

If Nepal is genuinely committed to sustainable economic growth, to attracting foreign investment, to expanding its banking sector and to building world-class infrastructure, then property valuation reform is not a peripheral concern, it is a prerequisite. The valuation sector sits quietly behind banking, taxation, compensation, insurance and development projects. If valuation is wrong, the entire financial system can be affected. It is time Nepal formally recognised, regulated and modernised the valuation profession.

The timing of intervention coinciding with the formation of a new cabinet and a renewed national conversation about institutional reform has lent it a particular urgency. Whether policymakers will heed the call remains to be seen. But the case is difficult to dismiss.

Naturally, Nepal is beautiful, geographically Nepal is landlocked and politically Nepal is always unstable. But after the March 5 election, the term unstable will be stable—that’s our hope—with a new political party set to form the government.  Nepal has just seen a political earthquake. In the recent election, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), led by Balendra (Balen) Shah, has secured a historic majority in the federal parliament, with around 182 seats out of 275. The so‑called big parties of yesterday have been pushed far behind. Many of their senior leaders have lost. Only former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has managed to return to parliament from Rukum East, while other familiar famous faces have disappeared from the front line. This result is not a small change; it is a clear message from the people that they were tired of the old way of politics and new one to be corrected in present and future with the hope not to be repeated from this wave too.

Nepal has long struggled with hung parliaments, unstable governance, and never-ending positional negotiations. The people’s lives remained unchanged despite the government’s repeated changes in leadership. Rather than being influenced by the general welfare, policy decisions were frequently influenced by personal interests, political agreements, and corruption. Like in the past, basic government services remained cumbersome, slow, and rude. People believed that even basic tasks required bribes or political ties. Due to their inability to obtain good services, health care, or education at home, young people from villages and small towns continued to migrate to cities and other nations. A ‘tsunami of votes’ was made possible by this lingering discontent.

Why did this tsunami of votes come for RSP and Balen Shah? There are several reasons. First, young people, especially the GenZ generation, had already shown their anger through protests and social media campaigns against corruption, nepotism, and the lifestyle of the political elite. They were tired of seeing leaders’ children enjoying luxury while ordinary youth stood in queues for passports and labor permits. Second, Balen presented itself as a clean, new force with a strong anti‑corruption message and a modern style of communication. Balen Shah’s own image as an engineer, rapper, and independent thinker who had already shaken the old parties in Kathmandu’s mayoral politics gave people hope that a different kind of leadership is possible.

Third, voters punished the old parties because they failed to provide stable and honest governance after the federal republic was established. Leaders kept making coalitions only to save their chairs, not to serve the people. They talked about socialism and equality, but the gap between their words and their actions became too big. In this election, people decided to clean the field. This is not just a victory for one party; it is a warning that any party can be thrown out if it betrays public trust.

Now, with a clear majority, the biggest hope is political stability. For the first time in many years, one party has enough seats to form a government without being hostage to small coalition partners. This creates an opportunity and a big responsibility. The question is: what should this new government do first, so that people feel their vote was not wasted?

The first duty of the new government is to restore ‘trust’. Trust will not come from speeches; it will come from concrete actions that people can see and feel in daily life. The government’s first decisions should focus on cleaning the system and improving basic services. A strong first move could be to announce a national “Good Governance and Service Reform Plan” with clear, time‑bound targets. For example, the government can declare that key services such as citizenship, social security, passports, driving licenses, land registration and business registration must be delivered within a fixed number of days, through a simple process, with transparent fees. There should not be rules office and employee wise.

To make this real, there should be a public “Revised Service Charter” in every office, and a system for citizens to complain easily if offices delay work or demands. Complaints should go to an independent mechanism that can take action quickly on responsible officials. If people see that the government seriously protects them against harassment in offices, their hope will grow.

The second urgent duty is to fight against growing corruption at all levels in political leadership, civil service, and the private sector. Corruption has become like cancer in Nepal. To control it, the new government can follow some guiding steps:

• Establish the mechanism of investigating assets of public holding 

• Give real independence, resources, and technology to anti‑corruption bodies so they can investigate big cases without political pressure 

• Protect whistle‑blowers who expose corruption in government offices, public enterprises, or private companies doing public work 

• Introduce e‑procurement and open data for all major contracts, so that the public and media can see who is getting which contract, at what price, and with what results

• Revise government office and employee numbers and provide plenty of tasks to the employee

• Enforce strict punishment for proven corruption, even if the person belongs to the ruling party

Importantly, the new government must apply the same standard to its own members. If RSP protects corrupt people inside its own ranks, the moral authority of this “change” will collapse. People voted for RSP to break the old culture, not to repeat it with new faces.

The third big responsibility is to make the state work for the whole country, not just for the center and own area. People in rural hills, Madhes plains, and remote areas have suffered from poor infrastructure of schools, poor health posts, bad roads, and lack of safe drinking water. Many of them feel that the state only remembers them during elections. The new government must show that it respects every citizen equally. Early budgets should prioritise basic services in the poorest and most neglected areas. Local governments should receive predictable funding and technical support, with clear rules and monitoring, so that funds are not misused on the way.

The government must also speak clearly about inclusion. Nepal is home to diverse communities—Dalit, indigenous, Madhesi, Muslim, Tharu, and others—who still face discrimination and barriers. For them, good governance means being able to enter an office without humiliation, getting justice from police and courts, and seeing people like themselves represented in state institutions. The new leadership should enforce laws against caste and gender discrimination, improve representation in public service, and design targeted programmes for those at the bottom.

Another major challenge is to give young people a reason to stay here. Before this election, unemployment, low wages, and frustration with the system pushed thousands of youths to go abroad every day. If nothing changes, the country will lose its energy and future. The new government must make youth employment a top priority. This can include transparent and fair public service exams, support for small and medium enterprises, skills training linked with technology and green jobs, and encouragement for innovation and start‑ups. At the same time, the government must clean up existing recruitment processes where cheating and favoritism have damaged trust.

To move toward a “Good Governance Country”, the change must be both structural and cultural. Structurally, laws, rules, and institutions have to be improved. Culturally, habits of power, ego, and misuse must be challenged. Political leaders should set an example by living simply, avoiding unnecessary luxury at public cost, and being reachable to citizens. Parliamentary committees should actually question ministers and review policies, not just act as rubber stamps. The media and civil society should be free to criticize without fear.

The first-ever decisions of this new government will be remembered. If they touch the everyday pain of citizens’ corruption, delay, disrespect, unemployment, reducing cost for representatives and government officials, poor service people will feel that a new era has truly begun. If those first decisions are only about positions, protocol, and party interests, people will quickly feel cheated again. The “tsunami of votes” that lifted RSP and Balen to power can, in future, sweep it away too.

Nepal now stands at a crossroads. The old parties have been taught a hard lesson by the people. The party has been given a historic chance. Stability will come not just from numbers in parliament, but from honesty in action. If this government can be brave, humble, and consistent, Nepal can slowly move from a culture of corruption and chaos to a culture of service and dignity. The people have done their part. Now it is the government’s turn to show this time, change is real. And we will feel we are rich in every aspect, where we were always poor. We are ready to wait for some time, understanding that deep reform cannot happen in one single day. But we are also watching carefully. The early days and the first decisions will be remembered for many years, either as the moment when Nepal finally started to respect its citizens or as one more missed opportunity.