WATER SECURITY ISSUES AFTER THE MEGA EARTHQUAKES OF 2015: SCARCITY OF SAFE

DRINKING WATER IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES OF NEPAL

Pabitra Gurung and Cecial Adhikari

WATER SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE:CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN ASIA

Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand29 November - 01 December 2016

OUTLINES OF THE PRESENTATION• Introduction• Challenges of Re-construction in Working Districts• Data for the Vulnerable Ranking• Methods• Results and Discussion• Conclusions

General:• More than 8000 people were died and more than 22,000 people were injured• More than 600,000 houses were destroyed and more than 300,000 houses were

damaged • 14 districts were severally affected earthquake• Disconnected from basic services: Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

Impact of Earthquake on the Drinking Water and Sanitation:• Water schemes: Total 11,288 (Complete destroyed 1,570 & Partial destroyed 3,663)• Nearly 2.2 million Household latrines were totally destroyed• Lack of water and destroyed latrines: Affected to hygiene practices• Affected on water availability: Reduced water yield, Lost of sources, Contamination due

to damaged of infrastructure and landslides

INTRODUCTION

CHALLENGES IN WORKING DISTRICTSChallenges of Reconstruction and Study Area (Working Districts):

• Prioritization of working area and Village Development Committees (VDCs)

• Prioritization of vulnerable communities

4 Working Districts:• Dhading: 47 VDCs• Gorkha: 62 VDCs• Nuwakot: 62 VDCs• Rasuwa: 18 VDCs

DATA FOR THE VULNERABLE RANKING

Three Major Community Level Parameters and Indicators:

1) Number of households without safe drinking water after the earthquakes

2) Number of households without improved sanitation after the earthquakes

3) Disadvantage Group (DAG) Ranking of the VDCs

DATA FOR THE VULNERABLE RANKINGThree Major Community Level Parameters and Indicators:

1) Number of households without safe drinking water after the earthquakes

DATA FOR THE VULNERABLE RANKINGThree Major Community Level Parameters and Indicators:

2) Number of households without improved sanitation after the earthquakes

DATA FOR THE VULNERABLE RANKINGThree Major Community Level Parameters and Indicators:

3) Disadvantage Group (DAG) Ranking of the VDCs

METHODS: WeightageA. Disadvantage Group (DAG) Ranking

I (Very Low Concentration of DAG) 5%II (Low Concentration of DAG) 7%3A (Medium Concentration of DAG) 25%3B (High Concentration of DAG) 28%IV (Very High Concentration of DAG) 35%

B. Status of Water and Sanitation SystemPercentage of Households without safe water after earthquake 60%Percentage of Households without improved sanitation after earthquake 5%Weightage of DAG Ranking in Percentage 35%

METHODS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONVulnerable Ranking Map of All the VDCs in Working Districts:

Percentage of HHs without Safe Drinking Water and Improved Sanitation Services after Earthquakes

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONVulnerable Ranking Map of All the VDCs in Working Districts:

Final Vulnerable Rank Maps of Intra-Districts and Inter-Districts Comparison of the VDCs

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONVulnerable Rank Status Analysis of the Working VDCs (Correlation with Overall V-Rank):Percentage of HHs without Safe Water, Improved Sanitation, and DAG Ranking

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Hou

seho

lds

with

out

Safe

Wat

er

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Hou

seho

lds

with

out

Impr

oved

San

itatio

n

Overall Vulnerable Rank

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Wei

ghta

ge o

f D

AG

Ran

k

All the VDCs of Study Districts

Working VDCs in Study Districts

Affect of the Earthquake in:

All of VDCs

Working VDCs

Damaged/Destroyed Houses (percentage of total houses)

83% 92%

Human Casualties (percentage of total population)

0.23% 0.16%

Households without improved water after earthquake

61% 65%

Households without improved sanitation after earthquake

76% 71%

DAG Ranking in Percentage 25% 25%

Overall Vulnerable Rank 63% 64%

• The technique was based on the damage of Water and Sanitation infrastructures, people excess to basic services, and socio-economic status within the VDCs and Districts

• Small exercise, but very useful technique to make the important decision to categorize vulnerable communities

• The technique was found socially and scientifically justifiable among the stakeholders and donor

• Considering community level parameter and indicators in the technique is a strength of decision making to select the working VDCs

• The technique was applied to reach out the re-construction activities to the relatively higher vulnerable communities/VDCs

CONCLUSIONS

THANK YOU