Do social security allowances empower or disempower endangered Indigenous groups in Nepal?

• Nepal's Constitution guarantees social protection, yet 20.1 million people currently lack coverage.
• Endangered Indigenous communities receive targeted cash allowances, but the impact is debated between empowerment and dependency.
• Challenges include fragmented programs, historical discrimination, geographic barriers, and the weaponization of benefits for political gain.
• Experts recommend integrating cash transfers with long-term livelihood development and inclusive policy design.

Social Protection Landscape

• Nepal recognizes social security as a human right under international conventions, including ILO Convention No. 169 and UNDRIP.
• Approximately 3.8 million people (13% of the population) receive benefits through over 85 distinct programs.
• The government officially supports 10 endangered Indigenous communities with populations under 10,000 each: Bankariya, Hayu, Kisan, Kusbadhiya, Kusunda, Lepcha, Meche, Raji, Raute, and Surel.

Impact on Indigenous Communities

• Positive outcomes: Recipients like the Bankariya report using monthly allowances (NPR 4,000/USD 27) for essential needs like education and healthcare.
• Economic resilience: Some communities, such as the Raji, use funds for small businesses and cooperative savings.
• Negative trends: Reliance on cash transfers can lead to the erosion of traditional skills, particularly among nomadic groups like the Raute.
• Social risks: Reports indicate potential issues with increased alcohol consumption linked to allowance money.

Structural and Political Challenges

• Administrative gaps: Lack of citizenship, data deficiencies, and poor information dissemination prevent many from accessing entitlements.
• Political instrumentalization: Benefits are often framed as gifts from specific political figures, such as former PM Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, during election cycles.
• Institutional weakness: Political patronage and lack of coordination between federal and local levels undermine the effectiveness of support.

Recommended Policy Paths

• Holistic approach: Combine cash allowances with investments in land access, secure housing, and vocational training.
• Inclusive design: Incorporate Indigenous knowledge and lived experiences into program implementation to support self-determination.
• Transparency: Expand electronic payment systems to reduce fraud while ensuring accessibility.