Earthquake response · February 2026

What the Earthquake Taught Us

What worked in the first three months after the earthquake, what held grassroots responders back, and what recovery needs next.

For Doh Eain, the first three months after the earthquake under the Reach, Relief and Recover Campaign were dominated by emergency response, with the following months intended for recovery and reconstruction. In practice, the transition between these phases was far from smooth.

Where local grassroots organisations existed, they were almost always the first and most effective responders. Embedded in their neighbourhoods, they immediately understood who needed help, where support was required, and how to reach people quickly. Time and again, we saw that even small amounts of funding placed directly in the hands of frontline community groups could generate outsized impact. These local actors, often working with limited resources, responded faster, more accurately, and with greater care than larger systems.

However, grassroots responses were often constrained by familiar materials, traditional construction practices, and limited access to technical guidance. As a result, early rebuilding frequently repeated pre-existing design flaws and structural weaknesses. Temporary fixes, patched walls, improvised shelters, lightly reinforced structures, quietly became permanent, embedding future risk.

National and international organisations brought valuable technical expertise and higher-quality materials, though some support was poorly matched to local needs. Yet slow processes for needs assessment, trust-building, and access meant assistance often arrived too late and relied heavily on manuals and guidelines rather than hands-on, contextualised support. The gap between technical knowledge and practical application proved costly during the early reconstruction window.

Doh Eain sought to bridge this divide by supporting fully locally led action where trusted partners existed, while also working directly with communities to introduce safer, more resilient approaches. This hybrid model worked well during relief but became harder once reconstruction was underway. In many places, rebuilding was already underway before safer options could be introduced. We found ourselves pushing back against unsafe practices rather than shaping them from the start, highlighting a broader issue: there are few clear, trusted pathways that link emergency response to safer recovery. In neighbourhoods with little or no grassroots presence, or outside our existing networks, the challenge was even greater. Without local partners, understanding needs and responding effectively took longer, often too long.

Nearly a year on, many communities, especially low-income and informal settlements, and particularly women and girls, continue to struggle. The key lesson is clear: local actors are not just implementers but leaders. When trusted, resourced, and supported at the right time, recovery can be faster, safer, and more resilient.