Nepal's catastrophic flood shows disaster preparedness must be a shared responsibility

The catastrophic floods in Nepal and Tibet highlight the urgent need for disaster preparedness that is a collective responsibility. A massive glacial collapse in the Himalayas led to flash flooding, resulting in hundreds of deaths, numerous missing persons, and extensive damage to villages, towns, and infrastructure. The victims included both Nepalis and tourists from various countries, such as Canada and America.

However, concentrating solely on the geological trigger overlooks a broader issue: disasters are multifaceted crises encompassing ecological, social, cultural, health, economic, and governance dimensions. We must investigate not only what led to this disaster but also why hazards transform into human catastrophes, who bears the consequences, and who holds responsibility for mitigating conditions that render communities vulnerable.

Our recent study on community-led earthquake preparedness in Kathmandu underscores this perspective. More than a decade after Nepal's 2015 earthquake, affected communities still endure prolonged displacement, incomplete reconstruction, dwindling water sources, livelihood uncertainty, psychological trauma, and insufficient institutional support.

These challenges defy traditional notions of recovery. Rebuilding physical structures does not guarantee a community's recovery; rather, it requires addressing water access, livelihoods, mental health, social connections, ecological systems, and trust in institutions. When one system falters, vulnerability can spread to other areas, making this catastrophe particularly urgent.

The present situation exemplifies a polycrisis, where climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, infrastructure weaknesses, social inequalities, and governance failures intersect rather than operate independently. Scientists must determine the exact extent to which climate change contributed to this specific event. While we should not hastily label every flood or landslide as a "climate disaster," the broader trends in the Himalayas are deeply concerning.

The loss of glaciers, changes in snow conditions, permafrost degradation, and shifting river systems create new opportunities for cascading hazards. Our research on Nepal's earthquake further illustrates that affected communities should not be viewed merely as vulnerable populations awaiting external aid. Community members have identified their own priorities for preparedness: timely information, locally organized training, adequately resourced community disaster teams, and greater roles for women.

Women are seen as caregivers, organizers, educators, and leaders in future preparedness efforts. This finding aligns with research on Indigenous, community- and women-led climate solutions, revealing that communities possess valuable knowledge and governance capacities often disregarded by conventional disaster systems. The issue lies not in the absence of community knowledge, but rather in governments, humanitarian organizations, and research institutions seeking community input without granting them genuine authority over how their knowledge influences preparedness, funding allocations, and decision-making.

To address this, we propose a responsibility perspective. This approach goes beyond recognizing that researchers, governments, universities, NGOs, humanitarian organizations, and funding agencies are not neutral observers but participants with obligations to communities, lands, waters, and future generations. Responsibility entails building relationships before disasters rather than arriving only in their aftermath.

It involves supporting community authority instead of merely consulting community members, ensuring sustained preparedness through long-term funding cycles, and acknowledging that communities contributing the least to climate change often suffer the most severe consequences. Nepal's catastrophe is not an isolated warning; Canada, for instance, is grappling with similar challenges.

Our collaborative research with Indigenous communities in Canada demonstrates how land-based knowledge can facilitate disaster adaptation, while community-led and relational approaches to water governance illustrate why resilience also depends on community authority, relationships, and locally grounded knowledge. Similarly, our research in Canada emphasizes the importance of land-based knowledge, community governance, relational accountability, and locally led adaptation.

While stronger early-warning systems, scientific monitoring, resilient infrastructure, and well-resourced public institutions are crucial, technology alone cannot foster resilience. Resilience also depends on relationships, ecological knowledge, community authority, trust, and institutions committed to accountability long after media attention fades.

Ultimately, we must consider the responsibilities of governments, researchers, humanitarian organizations, corporations, and all individuals in creating a more resilient future.