JIBGAR.COM

As the move of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) has become viral in social media, urban planning expert Dr. Jibgar Joshi has expressed the view that lower income people should not be isolated from the urban area. Dragging the smaller street vendors out from the urban area by using force is not appropriate, he pointed out.

The Metropolis should provide them with alternatives before removing them from the street, he added. These street vendors and the poor and marginalized people staying in the river side have become part of the urban life, he pointed out. The rich people of the urban area need their service to make their life easy and comfortable, he added. If we remove all the poor people from the street, who will do the jobs of the laborers?, he questioned.

“The metropolis has no right to make them cry,” he pointed out. The KMC has the responsibility to manage them instead of removing them from the city, according to Dr. Joshi. Nepal has the beautiful tradition of poor and rich people living together, which is our beauty, which we should not destroy, he maintained. “The acts of the KMC are encouraging division between the rich and the poor, which is very dangerous for our society,” says Dr. Joshi.

The so called rich people need the poor and marginalized people living in the urban area as they are providing valuable service to the city dwellers, he pointed out. If the KM tries to make the metropolis free from lower income group it will create chaotic situation, he added.

The activities of KMC’s new mayor Balen Shah created mixed reaction among the people. While some citydwellers have welcomed the move in one hand while on the other hand people have criticized the move. Removing landless squatters from Thapathali river bank and dragging out street vendors is not the right decision of the metropolis until and unless they are provided with option, they have pointed out.

.Introduction

Development is concerned with the people and the goal is to help them meet their needs irrespective of whether they are rural or urban. For the purpose of planning and development of any area, population and population density play a key role. The number of the people and where and how they live are important in developing strategies for meeting their present needs and sustain their ability to satisfy their future needs. Nepal is still predominantly rural. Elevated figures of the level of urbanization may have implications on rural development. There may be forced urbanization with premature loss of agricultural land and sprawl growth which is difficult to be serviced. Rural population may have to pay more taxes while getting less services, which increases the gap between the rich and the poor. Development strategies should differ according to the level of urbanization and the concomitant land use pattern.

Built environment should be planned and shaped for a given number of people to be served. How they live and where they live should influence all the actions on meeting their needs and make them happy. Different policies and strategies are required for the development of rural and urban areas as their environments and needs are different. These may vary with the density of population, people’s social behavior and cultural habits, their occupation and work places, their standard of living, the resources they use for meeting their needs and so on.

One of the reasons for the increase of urban population in Nepal is the urbanization of rural areas. There will be premature loss of environmental resources, agricultural land in particular if the process is not managed in a sustainable way. It is necessary to manage the urbanization of rural areas while ensuring sustainability and providing access for all to the opportunities it creates. In order to make the response and strategies relevant for their development, it is necessary to restrict the sprawl growth and the premature loss of environmental resources, agricultural land in particular. Categorizing rural areas as urban may affect their development pattern encouraging sprawl growth and the formation of slums. They may face forced urbanization with the wasting of scarce resources.

Urbanization leads to rapid use of natural resources. More urban population means more intensive use of resources. A municipality may be financially feasible at the present time with heavy use and loss of environmental resource. Designation of a rural area as urban will affect sustainability as there will be a tendency to overuse the natural resources for a fewer population. This will increase sprawl growth and the provision of urban infrastructure and services will be more complex. Rural people will have to pay higher urban tax. Agriculture becomes less feasible with fragmentation due to sprawl growth. A higher estimate for urban population may undermine sustainability. Rural people may be prompted to quit agriculture and related occupations. It is thus necessary to estimate urban population in view of sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to make an estimate of urban population of Nepal considering sustainability as the main concern. The paper is expected to generate a better understanding of the implications of exaggerated values of the urban population on sustainability.

Level of urbanization and resource use

The population of the then 58 municipalities accounted for 17.1 percent in 2011. Nepal’s National Report to Habitat III estimated the level of urbanization of Nepal as 38.8 percent in 2016. According to the preliminary result of the Census of 2021, this figure rose to 66 percent with the number of municipalities totaling 293 (including 6 metropolises and 11 sub-metropolises). The total population of all the municipalities is 19.3 millions accounting for 66 percent of the total population of Nepal. As it is clearly mentioned in the Census Report that municipalities may comprise of rural areas, this figure should not be confused with the level of urbanization in Nepal. It is true that the total population of all the municipalities is 66 percent of the population of Nepal. But this is not totally urban. However, the total population of all the municipalities is often loosely referred to be the urban population as this may serves the interest of the business and bureaucracy. This may also encourage municipalities to make an overuse of their land resources by locating activities for immediate returns without considering sustainability. This may justify them to urbanize rural and agricultural land with premature loss of environmental resources.

Urbanization that is taking place in Nepal involves rapid loss of natural resources. There is a lack of rigorous planning and implementation necessary for ensuring an optimum use of land while transforming urbanizing areas into sustainable built environment. As per Nepal’s National Report to Habitat III, all the municipalities are advised to divide their land area into three categories – a) already urbanized areas with shortage of infrastructure and services that needs to be serviced with the provision of infrastructure and services. b) would-be urbanized areas appropriate for planned urban development to accommodate the urbanizing population and c) conservation areas with rural characteristic for ecosystem services. Sprawl and haphazard development should be avoided for this means premature loss of environmental resources, agricultural land in particular. This also makes the provision of infrastructure and urban services more complex and costly. In order to ensure planned and sustainable urbanization, the resources of the rural areas should be used wisely. It is necessary to urbanize appropriate areas of a region where infrastructure and services can be provided in a sustainable way without making premature loss of resources.

Some issues to be addressed in estimating the level of urbanization

It is difficult to make a clear-cut distinction between rural and urban areas. It is a relative concept. Their inter-linkages and integration for sustainability are more important. Municipalities have some rural areas and VDCs (Rural Municipalities) have some urban areas. Urban areas need some rural areas for ecosystem services in urban areas and villages need some urban services for agricultural development and for basic needs. This makes it not easy to make an estimate of urban population. For rural development, it is necessary to manage urbanization in a sustainable manner. It is necessary to consider density of population as one of the key parameters for this distinction. Municipalities should optimize the use of their land resources in the context of sustainable development.

Many municipalities haves a mixture of dense urban areas and agricultural rural areas. The strategies for them need to be different. Otherwise, the rural population assuming to be the part of the municipality may prematurely shift to urban culture and use the available resources in an unsustainable way. As the demand of the population for urban goods and services will not increase, it will just be the wasting of the resources. Moreover, new developments will be scattered with sprawl growth that makes agriculture less feasible. Not only will the agriculture be affected badly, the transformation to an urban pattern will also not take place due to shortage of resources and limited demand for urban goods and service.

The level of urbanization of an area has implications on strategies and policies appropriate for the development of the area. It is necessary to properly manage the production, distribution, and consumption of the necessary goods and services according to the demand of the people which will increase with the level of urbanization. Rural people will not be able to afford the urban goods and services. It will be difficult to estimate the necessary inputs for the development of agriculture with the urbanization of agricultural land. What activities will be taking where within an area or a region will determine the demand for goods and services. For instance, water supply and energy for any area are planned according to the projected demand that depends on the affordability and the income of the people of the area.

Is it desirable to consider the population of a municipality to be totally urban? The answer is no for two reasons. Some rural areas are necessary to be integrated into the emerging urban ecosystem. Urban areas also need open spaces, greenery, urban agriculture and urban forestry for the proper functioning of the urban economy. Deliberate urbanization needs to be planned and properly managed for the sustainable use of the ever depleting resources. Rural areas will any way be subject to urbanization due to market forces and the nature of the governance. Moreover, the rural area within the municipality should be protected and conserved as such and not exposed to premature urbanization. Accepting the reality on the basis of the needs and priorities of different stakeholders, it is necessary to allow deliberate urbanization for integrating rural areas into municipalities. Rural areas have relatively less density with people engaged mainly in agriculture. Development strategies for them will mean urbanizing the limited area while protecting the agricultural and forest land. For rural development also, urban activities are necessary. Industries based on agriculture may have to be placed near the farms for easy transport of the agricultural products. Development of the rural areas also means the availability of basic health and educational services and some market functions.

Sustainability is threatened with the overuse of limited resources. This may happen with the forced urbanization of rural areas. In other words, a higher estimate of the urban population of any area or a region may lead to over-exploitation of environmental resources. In the pursuit of fast urban development, there will be a tendency for all the actors to indulge in lavish use of the resources. Municipalities need funding for urban development, which becomes possible with the conversion of agricultural land into urban use. People convert their agricultural land to urban use to be able to to pay more taxes. Business activities depend on land as the main source of financing. It will be easier for different levels of the government to rule with more resources generated from the overuse of the resources.

When things become critical, the need for environmental protection through the implementation of urban planning tools like zoning and bye-laws will be realized. Returning to actions after a long time negligence becomes chaotic as is now happening in Kathmandu Metropolis. Compliance with the bye-laws means more costs that makes feasible activities infeasible. It is not possible to pursue environmental goals in a short run without affecting the production, growth and equity. The sudden priority on planned development will have repercussions on equity and growth especially when activities are dislocated with demolition of buildings and infrastructure.

An estimate for urban population of Nepal

The foregoing shows that it is difficult to differentiate between urban and rural areas. The distinction between urban and rural areas has become blurred. Municipalities comprise of rural and urban areas with rural and urban population. It is clear that cities should have rural areas and villages should have some urban areas. Even in case of densely urbanized municipalities, some rural activities will be present, which means the presence of the rural population. Similarly, it is necessary to have urbanized areas in rural areas for agriculture and rural development. Rural population engaged in urban agriculture, forestry and other green sector activities may be considered to have been integrated into the urban culture of living. For making a rough but realistic estimate, municipalities may be categorized as follows:

1. Metropolises

2. Sub-metropolises

3. Municipalities other than metropolises and sub-metropolises with density of population greater that 1000 persons per km²

4. Municipalities with population between 100,000 and 155,000 with population between 100,000 and 155000 and density less than 1000 persons per km²

5. Municipalities with population between 70,000 and 100,0000 and density less than 1000 persons per km²

6. Remaining municipalities with population less than 70,00 and density less than 1000 per km²

There are six metropolises: Kathmandu, Pokhara, Lalitpur, Biratnagar, Bharatpur, and Birganj. Metropolises will have little prospect for agriculture as a main occupation. They may develop their rural areas as urban agriculture and urban forestry and greenery. They are considered to be totally urban as all will be engaged in urban activities. They may generate financial resources through the planned use of the land still to be developed.

There are 11 sub-metropolises: Ghorahi, Dhangadhi, Itahari, Hetauda, Janakpur, Butwal, Tulsipur, Dharan, Nepalgunj, Kalaiya, and Jitpur Simra, They will have an urge to urbanize their relatively lower density areas. Given the size of the population and the resources they have, they will have no problems in managing land development in a sustainable manner. It is assumed that any rural area within them will be well integrated with the growing urban needs in the form of greenery, dumping sites, open spaces and urban agriculture, parks and other amenities. Sub-metropolises are assumed to have sufficient resources and funds for further urbanization. They are considered to be totally urban.

Under category 3, there are 19 Municipalities with population density greater than 1000 persons per km² in 2021. They are: Birtamod, Banepa, Kirtipur, Sarah, Siddharthanagar, Madhyapur Thimi, Bhaktapur, Damask, Rajbiraj, Triyua, Mahalaxmi, Nagarjun, Chandragiri, Kageswori, Gokorneswore, Budhanilkantha, Tokha and Malangwa. As the density of population is relatively higher, it will be difficult to identify potential area for agricultural development. It may be necessary to promote urban agriculture, urban forestry and green areas for sustaining ecosystems. They need to be urbanized integrating the rural areas with the urban economy. The rural population within them are assumed to be integrated with sustainable urban development. As they have relatively higher density of population, they have less agricultural land. Under these assumptions, they are considered to be totally urban.

For category 4, there are 8 municipalities. They are Mechinagar, Kohalpur, Birendranagar, Godavari, Lahan, Sundarharaicha, Mechinagar and Bhim Dutta. Since the density of population is relatively lower, 10 percent of their population is considered to be rural.

For category 5, there are 6 municipalities with population between 70000 and 100000 and density less than 1000 persons per km² in 2021. They are Kawasoti, Inarwa, Tikapur, Gulariya, Vyas and Kamalamai. It is assumed that 20 percent of the population are still rural with engagement in agriculture and related fields as the main occupation. They will be encouraged for sustaining and integrating agricultural land with the urban economy.

There are 243 municipalities under category 6. Half of their population will be considered as rural. Strategies for rural and agricultural development will be prepared and implemented for their rural areas.

Under the above assumptions, the urban population of Nepal is calculated as shown in Table I below. The total urban population is 14 million accounting for 48.1 percent of the total population of Nepal.

Table I: Calculation of the urban population of Nepal

Conclusion

The population of the existing municipalities as of 2021 accounts for 66 percent of the total population of Nepal in 2021.This figure is often confused with the level of urbanization. It is necessary to understand that this Census figure of 66 percent refers to the total population of the all the municipalities which are not totally urban. It is obvious that a higher level will make the market forces and bureaucratic expenses urge municipalities to overuse their natural resources. With the assumptions made above, the percentage of urban population is computed to be 48.1 percent as shown in the Table above. This figure will encourage municipalities to integrate development and environment and consider sustainability in their pursuit for economic growth. In other words, this will help them to make a balance between sustainability and development. Given the complexity of distinguishing between urban and rural areas and the growing need for the integration of rural and urban ares, it may be a futile and costly exercise to determine the exact urban population of Nepal as a whole. Notwithstanding with what is said here, it is necessary for a municipality to develop its own specific strategies for development and sustainability. Municipalities should continue to pursue their economic growth with inclusiveness of all for equity and the wise use of resources for sustainability. In designating new municipalities in the future, the government should assess the potentials of the areas for sustainable urban development apart from the size of the population. Municipalities should have some rural population; but integration of the rural areas should be a major concern.

Abstract

This paper makes a brief assessment of Nepal’s response to COVID- 19 in general. It argues that the prevailing nature of governance has made the response less effective than what is expected. COVID-19 and the response to it will impact human prosperity for many years to come. The Pandemic is no doubt, a set back to the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs). It is a great challenge for humans.

The paper identifiers many advantages of the lifestyle we had during the lock down in terms of environment and health and the need to highlight them for inspiring people to lead a more sustainable way of living. It recognizes that the governance in place is not adequate. It identifies the shortcomings as the response experience reveals. At the initial stage, the response at the local level was good but the government wanted to exercise more control on local response. The changing nature of response on the Pandemic due to a shift of priority from health to economy created a vicious circle of less action on health resulting to more infection leading to less action. As of today the government lacked ability and resources to deal with such a challenge.

The paper shows ways and means of improving the governance. It views the Pandemic also as an opportunity to do things differently for a better future, through harnessing human potentials for change and progress. It examines the experience and works on shaping governance for achieving sustainable development. It is not realistic to expect much from big bureaucracies whether national or global, as they have several constraints influenced by different types of interests. It recognizes the need to visualize and develop COVID-19 responsive governance. It tries to identify changes in governance needed to recover better from COVID-19 and deliver the SDGs by 2030.

Introduction

The world is facing a global health crisis. COVID-19 is a challenge to humans on Earth of an unprecedented nature. The Pandemic is much more than a health crisis. It is perhaps the greatest threat of this century.

It demanded the highest level of response and preparedness of governments as well as the global community. Governments responded in different ways. Poverty is projected to increase for the first time since the 1990s and the number of people facing starvation may double.

Response to the Pandemic is linked with many issues; one of them being the strengthening of the governments for sustaining bureaucracies, national as well as international. It hardly uses the SDGs as a platform to bounce back better. It is clear that the path to sustainable development is going to be more difficult to follow with the need to return to business as usual.

The purpose here is in no way to undermine the efforts made by the government. It is just to understand what went wrong for a persistent attack on the Pandemic. WHO-driven health related response lacked the support of interlinked agencies. It has been leading the global effort to tackle COVID-19. The Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan, produced by WHO and partners, outlines the public health measures that countries should take to prepare for and respond to COVID-19. The Strategy Update of April 2020 provides further guidance for the public health response to COVID-19 at national and sub-national levels, and highlights the coordinated support that is required from the international community to meet the challenge of COVID-19. However the role of WHO became controversial. Leadership at WHO failed to announce the necessary measures to be taken in every stage, as the spread continued to soar up globally since it originated in Wuhan of China in December 2019. WHO failed to contemplate the outbreak situation and think of a better preparedness and response plan. Looking at it as a purely health care issue created problems in other sectors, much more significant than the health sector itself; and there are reversal of decisions as well as inconsistencies. WHO has so far failed to coordinate international health response; and global leadership is lacking. WHO needs more funding to track and understand the spread of the virus, to ensure patients get the care they need and front line workers get essential supplies and information, and to accelerate research and development of a vaccine and treatments for all who need them. WHO failed to provide adequate guidance and advice for people to look after their mental health during the COVID-19.

A large share of the new poor will be concentrated in poorer countries. Developing countries will have much larger populations at risk with fewer resources, and less capacity. The Pandemic urged immediate actions by member countries as well as global solidarity and leadership.

Even at the time of normal days, it is difficult to create a level playing ground for different partners of development to participate. During the crisis it is more difficult to create it. The State has extra power to control others and rights to change conditions for action through legislation, fiscal measures and policy making. The government had relatively more access to resources and assets, primarily due to social distancing and lock downs.

At the time of a catastrophe, disaster or a major risk, the state can use other tools, such as declaring the state of emergency to be more dominant while making a pure response to face the challenge. Most states of the world get reorganized to strengthen the ruling governments. Nepal is no exception and the response to and preparedness for the Pandemic clearly shows this reality.

Preparedness and Response

In Nepal, lock down was declared on 24 March 2020 after a positive case was identified on 23 January 2020. It ended on 21 July 2020. It became difficult to continue measures like social distancing and lock down for long. It was used in the beginning due to external pressure without necessary homework. COVID-19 is a major health catastrophe of the century. For better and coordinated management of quarantine centers, the government issued Quarantine Operations and Management Standard for COVID-19 in May 2020. It was necessary to help the infected people with food as well as with isolation and quarantine facilities. However, food became scarce and many quarantine centers lacked essential WASH services. The government failed to properly manage quarantine centers across the country. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure quality food and medical care for the people staying in quarantine centers. It was reported that they were over-crowded and lacked basic facilities such as clean water, food, and toilets. Relief woks were done in a piecemeal basis. There is a shortage of health professionals and ambulances in quarantine centers. The government also failed to put a reliable testing system in place. It has also failed to check people coming from India through the open border points. Due to lack of data, distribution of relief materials was random, and the real poor were left out. Also, the food provided were found to be of low-quality. There were reported cases of misuse of funds. Nepal thus faced problems in managing small and simple tasks of providing quarantine and relief works.

Most governments of the world were unaware of the gravity of the challenge ahead and tried to resolve the issue through control mechanisms. Nepal is no exception to it. The challenge should have been faced by inspiring and unlocking the potentials of all to work for the public welfare. The government undermined the need to develop innovative approaches. Instead of unlocking the potentials of local communities, it tried to dictate and control them. The centralized response to the Pandemic did not match with the situation-specific needs. It wants the private sector to invest more primarily for more revenue; not for public welfare. More taxes should also provide more relief and enhance the public welfare. The impact of COVID-19 became so severe and the response so poor that the government did not want to assume sole responsibility; although it is controlling the whole process of response.

Service providers have to adhere to several rules made by the government in haste under the external influence and following the guidelines and protocols of WHO. They need to profess accountability all the time and follow and comply with standards. This led to poor performance of WHO in responding to COVID – 19. Countries like Nepal failed to adapt them to the local conditions. At the outset, Nepal was serious and projected the Pandemic as alarming but became somewhat passive when there was real danger.

Whenever there is a disaster or a catastrophe, the government may need to adjust the state machinery to perform relief works for public welfare. An extreme case is declaring the stat of emergency curtailing the rights of the people. People understand this and generally cooperate with the government with lots of suffering and adjustments. However the government at the same time gives priority to its own interest and try to assume more power, limiting the access of others to resources. Such things have become more common during the recent time.

Most of the quarantine centers did not meet the minimal conditions prescribed in the operation standard. There is a lack of coordination among different levels of government to monitor performance outcomes. Information for better health care is lacking. The government is not in a position to contain the spread and take care of public health. Coordinated effort is a must to address culturally appropriate ways of social distancing, hand washing, self-isolation and safe home care of infected people. Community leaders are not mobilized to disseminate accurate information and to facilitate relevant social practices. Even information sharing is restricted to ensure full control on the whole process. The performance of the local governments was initially significant and they mobilized the NGOs as well. However, the center did not like it. There was a shortage of funds and the total capacity became inadequate. The priority shifted towards governing from combating the virus. Initiatives from voluntary organization dried away with the erratic and frequent changes in the way the government handled the situation. Innovative attitude and changes are discouraged. Good practices, instead of being developed and scaled up were suppressed. The role of provincial governments in the process was not significant and CDOs became active.

There was a quick return to the normal ways of delivery system with opening ups. The lessons learnt due to lock down were not used. People are allowed to suffer more with increasing scarcity of medical care and other resources.

Strategies to mitigate quarantine related challenges and to increase community surveillance were lacking. After a couple of months, the government in the wake of increase of the virus threat shifted the burden to the people to take care of themselves. People staying in quarantine were not happy with the management and complained of the shortage of necessary infrastructure. Quarantines and isolation centers became a source of infection in some places. Medical and safety arrangements were found to be inadequate; and awareness and healthcare interventions were not properly implemented in some quarantine centers.

As the government ended lock down measures and planned to resume long-haul public transportation and civil aviation, the risk of virus spread at community level was still there. Modality of quarantine measures also changed as the government issued Home Quarantine Standard, 2020 on July 17, 2020. The responsibility to allow and keep vigilance on home quarantines is given to local governments. Those people traveling to and from the infected areas are to be home quarantined for 14 days. The government did mot let the people know why the lock down was enforced, why it was lifted, and what progress was made during the lock down.

Security agencies deployed to implement the lock down were reported to be using excessive force against the public. Response during the Pandemic has undermined people’s right to life, liberty and security. Human rights monitoring report shows that during the lock down, people were beaten or tortured by the police.

There is decreasing number of testing for COVID-19. Neither are isolation and quarantine centers improved. The prolonged lock down made the life of the poor and vulnerable people — especially daily wage earners — miserable. Provincial and local governments have not been able to reach out to them with adequate relief packages.

A cross-sectional study conducted among COVID Clinics shows 95.8 percent of them had the provision of hand washing (soap water/ alcohol-based hand rub). The provision of infrared thermometer was available at 92.6 percent of the hospital entrances. 93.5 percent of the hospital had Operation Theaters (OT) with a total of 273 OT rooms and 170 OT ventilators. All the COVID Clinics were using laboratory facilities of their hospitals.

The Experience of the Response

Before the pandemic, major progress was made in improving the health of millions of people. Progress was notable in increasing life expectancy and reducing some of the common killers associated with child and maternal mortality. Health emergencies such as COVID-19 pose a global risk and have shown the critical need for preparedness. The Pandemic provides an opportunity for preparedness and for investment in public services.

Cities with better land use have less problems to respond to the Pandemic. Nepal faced problems in providing quarantines for a few victims and in maintaining social distancing. The majority of the population are receiving the essential goods and services through the informal sector. There has been positive impact of low mobility and social distancing on environment. Service delivery is severely affected due to lack of coordination among different levels of government and service-providers.

Healthy people are the foundation for healthy economies. If current trends continue, only 39 per cent to 63 per cent of the global population will be covered by essential health services by 2030. The COVID-19 crisis has disrupted essential health services around the world. Some services have been suspended to free up resources for COVID-19 patients and to reduce the risk of transmission. If universal health coverage is to become a reality by 2030, growth in the provision and use of essential health services must greatly speed up. It is necessary to keep up with the commitments to improve access to health and health care.

Response in the beginning was not bad but it could not be sustained due to its repercussions on other sectors of the economy. It led to problems in almost all the sectors of the economy. There is an increase in poverty level. This is followed by frequent changes in decisions and policies. Changing decisions often weakens governance and increases corruption and leakage. The response became inadequate in facing the challenge.

The lock down experience clearly showed that we should try to satisfy our needs through the local economy itself as far as possible. Besides supporting sustainability, this will create neighborhood vitality, encourage local actions, enhance community cohesiveness, and reduce GHG emission.

Lock down lifestyle is definitely not what we want. But we have problems and challenges even during the normal days. We have problems in satisfying our needs and wants. How we live makes our Planet Earth vulnerable. We have to think consistently on the possible threats and risks of different kinds. Environment is important to improve the quality of medical services. The Pandemic has helped to unlock the potentials of local organizations and the informal sector in satisfying the needs of the people in a more sustainable way. Many supra-local organizations use wrong policies, media and bureaucratic tools to undermine their ability and performance. Higher level organizations resist the required changes at the local level. They should have relied on the local economy and the local actors.

Social distancing is claimed to be the best way to protect us from the spread of the Pandemic. However, it was not easy to maintain. It led to increasing exclusion. In the name of health risk and environment, the rich had good reasons to neglect the poor. The disparity between the rich and the poor has widened. All that the government does is to raise the public fear of the virus. This increases the social exclusion. People do not mix when they have to help the less privileged. During the lock down, the priority was on public health. However actions on public health are linked with the marketing of the health services. Medical care is being looked as a profitable activity. Activities are formulated for relief work, for pubic health and for social inclusion but they need to be governed by the market. Whatever is not supported by the market will slowly fade away. The government makes rules and if they were not supported by the market, they will be changed or ignored.

In making the response more effective, there is a problem within the government. The conflict of interest within the government makes it difficult to implement good policies and guidelines. Any decision in favor of public good will mean some sort of adjustments in some other sectors of the economy. It seems the affected sectors did not cooperate. The lock down affected different sectors of the economy in different ways. As it was prolonged, all the sectors looked into their own interests. Leadership became weak with fragmented decision-making within the government and failed to mobilize the concerned agencies. Well intended decisions are not implemented because of the resistance from the affected agencies of the government. Sectoral interest is upheld by the concerned ministry. The concerned agencies along with the private sector created pressure to change good decisions. This led to frequent changes in guidelines and directives which reduced the people’s trust on the government.

An Assessment of the Response

COVID-19 outbreak has affected the economy and livelihood. Infrastructure at quarantine centers are lacking with the shortage of adequate health professionals and ambulances. The Pandemic and the response in different forms including lock downs did not markedly affect the revenue collection of the government. There is minimum impact on construction activities. Access to various inputs to the construction industry increased. Transport of materials is easier due to less traffic jams. Construction works got high priority. Public transport is affected. However government and private vehicles have no problems.

It takes long time to bring the education sector back to the track. Its impact on poverty and disparity will be seen after a a long time. On-line education is not available for the poor. The cost of education is increasing. While it takes long time for people to change, the government makes decisions at the last hour and expects the people to understand the changes and comply with them. People have been cooperative and the government uses stringent means to get the people’s support. Yet, it complains that the people are not cooperative. People do their best and suffer too. The government is alienated from the people, the poor in particular. Incidence of the response on the poor is not considered. Whenever lock down is lifted or relaxed, the poor who suffered most served to bring the economy back to normal.

A consolidated information management system was lacking for the assessment of effectiveness of quarantine and isolation centers across the country. Local governments are on the front line for supporting the health care and livelihood of the people. There is a need for a more coordinated response in administering federal programs related to health insurance and employment programs, without limiting proactive measures to combat the crisis.

The number of the poor has increased partly due to the nature of response to the Pandemic. The poor have less access to housing in urban areas. The loss of usable space made them homeless. They could not return to their villages due to lock down. Rescue and relief works are so planned that they generate enough profit. Bureaucracies are not interested to decrease the number of poor. They benefit when the number of the poor increases as they will have more funding to work with. They could justify their presence when the number of Pandemic victims increases. Whenever there is a disaster, poverty thus increases. The poor cannot afford most of the services and medical care. They not only loose their jobs but are also deprived of shelter as the landlord is afraid of virus infection and considers it a threat to rent out a room. They do not have computers and internet for on-line digital education. They had problems to go back to their own native places due to lock down and higher transport costs. The number of the people deprived of basic needs has thus increased in a dramatic way with irregularities in relief works as well as decreasing access to rental housing and medical care.

Response to COVID-19 means avoiding congestion and overcrowding in cities. Managing the urban core during the Pandemic was very difficult as is evident from the case of Kathmandu. It requires organizing space for effective service delivery; health care in particular. Social distancing is against the notion of city cluster development. COVID-19 is an urban Pandemic associated with crowding. Quarantine, isolation and treatment are all specialized services in this sense. Any relief work is linked with crowding during the response period. Several times the government relaxed and fixed lock down rules and regulations. This made life very difficult for the urban population. The impact of social distancing for a city like Kathmandu is not easy to understand for all. After the satisfaction of the necessities of life, people look for social identity. We need social contacts for creating a good living environment. Unnecessary crowding whether in offices, temples or market places has become a long tradition and is a part of the culture. It needs transformative response to reduce crowding. Crowding during the lock down is created mainly due to the nature of the bureaucracies. They have the power to suppress the people’s voice. They work when they like. People unnecessarily crowd to receive relief materials including food as they set the timing for distribution at their convenience fulfilling their purpose at the same time. Instead of reducing crowding and improving the delivery, they shy away from the response activities.

The Pandemic should be seen as an urban issue. The concern of urban planning is public health. People need environmentally sound living with an adequate access to open space and greenery. Urban planning should help to create adequate urban space that increases the ability to deal with the Pandemic.

The priority of the government has always been economic growth and the extra power gained during the crisis has made the governance worse. The increased power of the government due to the crisis could not be used for enhancing inclusion and sustainability. Instead it is used to rule. This made the private sector shy away from facing the challenge. The government behaved like an enterprise working for its own benefits and not for the public good. It failed to promote the private sector, which has supported the national economy. The government is allowing and encouraging market supported activities. As the government has become increasingly involved in business activities, it fails to enable the market in favor of the public goo. It does not address the concerns of the affected partners in a comprehensive way. As a result, there is frequent and abrupt changes in its decisions and the overall policy environment is uncertain. This makes people suffer more; the poor in particular. The government does not subsidize the poor. Instead it projects the response as a source of revenue. It is mobilizing resources for its own expenses. It tries to use the resources for strengthening its role. It is not able to create a level playing ground for all. It has the prerogative to act or not to act. It becomes active only when things work.

The remittance is one of the main sources of government funding in recent times. The government is very keen not to loose it. With the loss of jobs, the number of the poor has increased. It was not easy to take care of those returning from abroad.

Whenever there is a risk or disaster, funding becomes the number one issue, which helps the government to mobilize more resources. It totally controls any outside help. The response to the Pandemic shows that its primary concern is not health. It invests in health care if it is feasible and if it is profitable. Right from the beginning, there has been a concern for the possible impact on GDP. This led to more competition among sectors to open up even when the Pandemic is getting worse. Simple tasks of providing services are made more complex with issues of funding. Related activities undertaken were tied up with issues related to costs, inconvenience and financial risks. Instead of jointly fighting against the crisis and investing on preparedness, activities were judged from impact on financial risks perceived by the concerned agencies. Policies were discontinued when there were protests from the affected parties. The market forces influenced the process of response. That the economic indicators did not go that bad due to reduction in unsustainable consumption was not noted.

The growing incidence of COVID-19 in Kathmandu was due to crowding and concentration of activities. Instead of spreading the activities to the outlying areas, the response favored the concentration of activities in Kathmandu. The result is high incidence of the cases in Kathmandu. The incidence of the Pandemic is centered in crowded urban areas. The virus thrives in densely urbanized areas. Management of the urban core will reduce the virus problem.

The nature of response to the Pandemic has clearly shown that the centralizing tendency of the government is the main cause for poor performance. The response is better where local governments are active with the support of other stakeholders. The government becomes impatient and asserts its power in controlling them. Actions from the top weakens the response process resisting desirable changes that are taking place.

Capacity enhancement at the local level will increase the production of goods and services. The main purpose of capacity development is to make these easily available for all. It should be linked with the ability of preparing situation-specific rules and regulations. It should aim at decentralized government action promoting participatory development.

Sustainable Development and Governance

Integral elements of sustainable development are economic growth, equity and environment. Sustainable development requires a constant balancing of these three pillars at all times. Each of them influences the other two. Any activity in favor of inclusion and environment at the time of crisis needs to be evaluated not only from the financial aspect but also from the perspective of sustainable development. It is not easy as the experience during the lock down clearly shows. Actions on health and environment can be sustained only when they get integrated with the market forces. It is more difficult to pursue inclusiveness at the time of Pandemic. With economic growth, public goods should be improved. The general tendency has been to focus on growth at any cost; the concern for equity and environment is sidelined.

Our goal is the sustainability of the Planet Earth for the survival of human beings with a livable environment. We are committed to achieving SDGs by 2030. Most of the SDG targets by 2030 are related to public health. These include ensuring access to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services for all and upgrading slums. Some other targets are reducing the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities; and providing universal access to safe, inclusive and green public spaces. It envisages to availing water and sanitation for all and provide access to sustainable transport for all. It aims to enhance the capacity for participatory development. It is also linked with sustainable consumption and production as well as the creation of peaceful and inclusive societies.

SDG 3 aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Healthy lives and well-being at all ages are essential for creating sustainable and prosperous communities. The Pandemic has badly affected health systems all over the world. Health outcomes already achieved are at risk. Most countries have insufficient health facilities, medical supplies and health care workers for the surge in demand. The Pandemic has shown that in rich and poor countries alike, a health emergency can push people into poverty.

Response to and preparedness for the risks and disasters are inadequate. Nepal had faced many problems and challenges during the recent past. But the nature of response and preparedness did not change much. In fact the nature of governance has not changed for a better response over the years. This recent crisis clearly indicates that any risk like the Pandemic can disrupt the economic efforts. Sustainable development therefore depends also on the capacity to address any sort of risks.

The opportunities created by the lock down in terms of curtailing unsustainable consumption pattern should be recognized. It is necessary to capitalize on the savings made possible by the Pandemic. The experience should be used for improving governance and for achieving sustainable development:

• The lock down has made us rethink about our needs and life styles. Learning from the response experience, consumption pattern should be adjusted to make it more sustainable. Some of the things that we are after really do not matter. It may inspire us to change our life-styles in our cities to more sustainable ones. It is possible to lead a happier life following a more sustainable life style. Our cities should not grow to a scale that makes them difficult to manage. They should easily provide health and environmental services such as water, energy, urban spaces and so on.
• Local service providers are important. Service delivery could be improved with reduction in commuting costs if they are encouraged to serve more. In order to make neighborhoods more productive, functional and integrated with the urban economy, it is necessary to utilize the local resources and unlock the local potentials. It is necessary to organize the urban space to make service delivery smooth, to facilitate social distancing and to reduce over-crowding. Travel demands and unsustainable consumption should be reduced.
• Financial crisis is often exaggerated as the interest is focused on the revenue collection. Resources saved as the result of the Pandemic and the lock downs are not accounted for.
• Health care for people is not in order due to a centralized response. There is centralization on partisan lines. There should be better coordination among the three levels of the government in responding to any challenge. The current experience shows that even when local governments are capable, the presence of higher level agencies make them less active in the response process. A strong local system can initiate changes in the development process and mobilize support from higher-level agencies. This is not happening now as the Federal government extends its power at the time of a catastrophe. Nepal’s experience in terms of implementing the new constitution and shaping the role of provincial governments clearly shows that there is little effort to make them functional. The party-wise centralization made it possible for the Federal government to control the actions of the Mayors in most cases through the dominant role of CDOs. The principle of subsidiarity should be followed to promote local self-governance. Stakeholders should collaborate to reduce mobility needs and per capita cost of service delivery. Local governments should be allowed to manage urban environment. Higher levels of government should help them. It is necessary to unlock the local potentials learning from the experience. The local government will have autonomy when it truly represents the people and controls the fiscal resources. Improved urban tax system should be supported by effective delivery of urban services.
• It is not possible for the government to safeguard the public interest by being engaged in some of the business activities. Even in case of public health and education, its performance is poor. Wherever there is more profit, it tries to overtake. This should be stopped and it should enable the market to deliver the public good.
• The government advocates the concept of social distancing but creates crowding while providing medical care or distributing any relief materials. It opens and closes offices of public services as per its need and priority. It tries to be strict in the beginning and gives up when there are protests. It uses police force arbitrarily and become lenient as pressures build up. The present situation of governance is not conducive in achieving the SDGs. Meeting SDGs will require a transformative change to better governance and partnership formation among the stakeholders.
• Regarding the preparedness, the provincial governments ought to be brought to the front in the response process. They should have an inventory of their assets and resources. They should be willing to support the local governments in implementing good and workable strategies and help those providing medical care and space. They need to take full responsibility of the regional resources and build competence. Had they focused on regional resource management as they should, it would have been easier to address the Pandemic. The interference of the federal government in the management of spaces for quarantine and isolation could have been avoided. The Provincial government should also support:

i) case finding and contact tracing, leveraging the in-country digital networks; and

ii) support development, integration, and/or strengthening of health information and emergency management systems.

The concept of sustainable development is relevant for sustaining economic growth. Growth was affected due to the Earthquake 2015, the so-called Indian blockade, and now the Pandemic. Whenever there is a disaster, there is fear that the economy might collapse with increased number of the poor. Our response to the crisis would be more effective if we pursue growth without undermining environment and health as well as inclusion. However, we are after immediate economic growth at any cost.

Towards a New Social Order

The nature of the response has increased exclusion. Instead of unlocking the people’s power to adapt to the consequences of the disaster, they get alienated from the recovery process. Poverty and deprivation of essential services will greatly reduce if the governance is shaped for a more equitable distribution of resources and the rich commiserate with their less fortunate fellow human beings. Leaving no one behind has a strong social value. Access to medical care is of paramount importance. Vaccines should be considered as a global public good. Funding is required for resilient health care and universal health coverage. We should use the Pandemic experience to do better in promoting health, environment and inclusion. Growing poverty level is a major threat to sustained economic prosperity. High economic growth with more problems in terms of exclusion and depletion of environmental resources is not a good option.

The interest of the poor will be ignored unless they themselves can make their voices loud enough. People should be made aware that, just like for any other urban services, they are paying for safety, security and health related services. They should assert their rights as buyers. The service takers are not treated well. Artificial scarcity and time pressure are created to make them insecure in getting the basic services. Despite huge investments in infrastructure, people do not get quality services. The costs of free distribution of relief goods and materials is huge. Even in relief worksafter a crisis, the goodsreceived as charity seldom reach the poor. It is necessary to understand the value of suffering for a social cause. Our experience shows that relief works are difficult to get implemented. Due to leakage and negligence, such works are less cost-effective. The response to the Pandemic has further decreased the access of the poor to resources. The solution does not lie on counting the increasing number of poor and trying to uplift them.

Financing should rely on availing better services to the people. The best way to generate resources in a sustainable way is to ensure cost recovery through the sale of urban goods and services. The government should so enable the market that service-takers are not affected.

It is necessary to understand that suffering is an integral part of life. We need to create a society where people are willing to suffer for a social cause. At present, one hardly gets an opportunity to serve for a social cause. Response to COVID-19 shows that the potentials due to human nature of willingness to suffering for a social cause is seldom used. Whatever the people do, there are many hurdles and conditions that block their potentials. They become less motivated to work. The government instead of motivating people and business, controls their activities to appropriate resources. It tries to assume all the rights to safeguard the public purpose. As people want to serve a public purpose, they suffer when they are barred to participate in the generation of public good.

Quick return to the normal condition makes governance worse and business less concerned with quality and standard. We need to create an environment where everyone will be willing to work for the pubic good and inclusion. It is necessary to create a new social order. The contribution of the informal sector in cities should be recognized. Health care providers should be inspired and motivated for suffering and sacrifice with a high risk and ethical standard imbibed into the professional code of conduct. People opt for riskily professions as they think the purpose of life is to do others good and make this world a better place to live in. Medical profession should be projected as a public service of high stature and not a business. Efforts to revive such a culture is the need of the day. Such organization on the other hand should be brought into public assessment and fair completion and ranking in terms of there contribution to social good should be initiated. Social recognition and awards for a good action is disappearing and partisan alliance has become necessary for the recognition. This needs to be reversed and any contribution worth acknowledging must be recognized and scaling up of such activities should be encouraged. Education should impart students a feeling for the social good and inspire them to be a source for the necessary change.

It is not enough to attain high economic growth in the post Pandemic period. It will be easier to do better growth wise as there has been enormous saving of scarce and depleting environmental resources of the Planet Earth. In the process of over exploitation of these, due to the failure to create a level playing ground, rich will be richer and poverty will increase all the more. whatever has been saved due to the Pandemic and the response to it will be exhausted in no time due to the obsession for economic growth.

Unless there is transformation in the value system, it is not possible to achieve SDGs. Our needs should be so curtailed that they can be fulfilled in a sustainable and inclusive way. It is necessary to appreciate the value of a more austere life style. We should commit to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We should recognize the vast resources bound with the people and use them to build our economies. We should unlock their potentials, learning to live a sustainable and spiritual life. We should change our value system and measure our success in terms of the public good that we enhance; developing and nurturing a new way of living. If we share what we have and leave no one behind, the issue of poverty may be resolved. The way we look at poverty ought to be changed. We need to appreciate the contributions they are making especially working in the informal sector of our urban areas. The response will be better if the government works with the people shaping a new social order.

Conclusion

Sustained prosperity of the humankind is threatened now and then due to risks. Our response to any threat like the Pandemic weakens our economy. Our economies are not resilient enough to consider the consequences of a crisis. This clearly shows that the way we develop our economies should take the risks into account for sustaining economic growth.

Effectiveness of the response to the Pandemic depends mainly on two factors. The first is to limit the spread of the virus through medical facilities and measures like social distancing, quarantine and isolation. The second is to enhance the ability to treat the affected through medical care. There should be universal access to vaccine. The main purpose of capacity development is to make health and other services easily accessible to all at all times. During the Pandemic, it is more difficult. Capacity at municipal and ward level needs to be enhanced for providing goods and services to their residents. The response would have been more effective if the government had worked closely with the people and the local system. Good opportunities created by the lock downs are not captured. It is necessary to practice austerity as inspired by the Pandemic.

The concept of public good is key to sustained prosperity. The government is not in a position to deliver public goods. It has become a key player of the market and is responsible for the market failure in delivering the public good. We should enhance the public good by curtailing our consumption and linking the production system with what we need. The solution lies on transforming to a culture of more sustainable life styles. It became clear that bigger economies are not necessarily more resilient. Local governments should be entrusted to the whole process of partnership formation in order to motivate stakeholders. Transition to sustainable and inclusive development may not be easy. Nepal needs to be resilient; less dependent on external influences including the UN system. Instead of making policies to increase the number of poor, it is necessary to banish poverty through motivating to live within the available means and be inspired with the notion of public good. Only a transformative change in our value system will enable us to deal with risks and disasters in a proper manner. Federal system should be used to make governments at different levels more responsible in the deepening of decentralization. Local response was necessary and most of activities were executed locally with strong local action. The response requires a learning-by-doing approach with constant monitoring and feedback. The ability to fight the Pandemic largely depends on managing the learning process.