Submit your Article

The devastating Bhotekoshi-Trishuli disaster of Aug 26 has fundamentally changed Nepal’s climate discourse. In its aftermath, national attention turned to the climate crisis, its increasingly visible impacts, and what Nepal should say at the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the upcoming COP31. 

There was also a strong civic and intellectual call for Prime Minister Balendra Shah to represent Nepal at a moment when the country was confronting one of its most consequential climate-related disasters. In my Sept 10 article in this paper, I argued that the question is no longer whether Nepal has a legitimate claim to climate justice, but how it can make that claim more scientifically grounded, morally compelling, legally credible and politically influential. The prime minister’s UNGA address has, in important respects, translated this argument into a clear political and diplomatic position. More importantly, it offers a framework for what Nepal must do at home.

From climate vulnerability to climate justice 

One of the strongest aspects of the speech was its framing of climate change through justice, linking both distributive and procedural justice—how the benefits and burdens of climate action are shared, and who has voice and influence in decision-making. Nepal’s argument therefore goes beyond vulnerability. Those contributing least to climate change are bearing severe consequences, often with fewer resources to prepare, respond and recover. The prime minister also connected climate justice with Nepal’s own commitments, including forest conservation, hydropower, electric mobility and the net-zero target. 

This strengthens Nepal’s case. Nepal is not simply asking others to act while doing nothing itself. The deeper question is how much more a low-emitting and highly vulnerable country can reasonably be expected to do without adequate international support. The cost of climate injustice will only increase if it is not addressed in time.

The mountains are not only Nepal’s concern 

The speech also positioned the Himalayas within a much broader ecological system. The Hindu Kush Himalaya is home to nearly two billion people and provides water, ecosystems, agriculture and livelihoods far beyond Nepal, through a range of ecosystem services, including provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. The Prime Minister’s linking of the mountains with downstream regions and the ocean is particularly important. 

Changes in glaciers, snow, permafrost, watersheds and mountain ecosystems affect water availability, agriculture, biodiversity, settlements, infrastructure and downstream populations. The Himalayas are therefore not simply Nepal’s geographical asset; they are part of a life-support system whose stability matters far beyond our borders. This gives Nepal an opportunity to build a broader constituency for mountain climate action—connecting mountain communities with downstream populations, regional economies and ocean systems.

From fragmented information to regional cooperation 

The proposed Himalayan Climate Resilience Mechanism involving Nepal, India and China is another significant element of the speech. Sharing satellite data and scientific expertise, monitoring dangerous glacial lakes, strengthening joint early-warning systems and coordinating disaster assistance reflect a basic reality: climate and disaster risks do not follow political boundaries. 

The Bhotekoshi-Trishuli disaster demonstrated this interconnectedness. Yet turning the proposal into reality will require sustained diplomacy, scientific collaboration, data-sharing, institutional trust and clearly defined mechanisms for joint action in a region of complex geopolitical and economic interests. Its real test will be whether Nepal can turn climate diplomacy into practical regional cooperation.

Climate finance: From demand to delivery 

The prime minister’s position on climate finance was particularly important. The demand for grant-based support rather than another cycle of large-scale loans, together with concern over bureaucratic barriers, addresses a central problem in the global climate finance architecture. As he stated, “Climate justice cannot just remain a beautiful phrase in a United Nations Document.”

The issue is not simply how much finance is announced, but whether vulnerable countries can access adequate, predictable and appropriate resources when they need them. At the same time, Nepal must strengthen its own capacity to identify priorities, develop credible proposals, meet fiduciary requirements, coordinate across government and ensure that finance reaches communities most exposed to climate risks.

The justice test within Nepal

The climate justice agenda should be pursued with the same commitment both internationally and within Nepal. This means paying particular attention to households and communities that face greater exposure to climate and disaster risks, including women, indigenous peoples, Dalits, people with disabilities, older people and geographically isolated communities, many of whom have fewer resources and options to prepare, evacuate, recover and rebuild.

This domestic dimension of climate justice requires climate risk to be integrated into development planning, infrastructure, disaster risk reduction, social protection, land use, agriculture, energy, water and urban development. The questions should be not only how much climate finance Nepal receives, but also who benefits, who participates in decision-making, whose knowledge is recognized and who bears the risks of development.

A test of climate-resilient development 

Perhaps the most important domestic message is the framing of recovery from the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli disaster. Reconstruction should not simply restore what existed before; it should create a more resilient future. The corridor is a living mountain system where infrastructure, rivers, ecosystems, trade, tourism, culture, agriculture, energy and communities are deeply interconnected. Rebuilding in the same way, without considering changing hazards and future climate uncertainty, would simply reproduce vulnerability. 

The reconstruction therefore offers Nepal an opportunity to demonstrate climate-resilient development in practice: infrastructure designed for changing hazards, settlements planned around mountain and river dynamics, early warning embedded in planning, ecological restoration integrated into reconstruction, and local and scientific knowledge brought together. The corridor could become a national demonstration of resilient development.

Early warning and mountain knowledge 

The prime minister’s call to “build systems that warn, alert and save lives” also has an important domestic implication. Early warning cannot remain a technical project limited to forecasting institutions. Every person exposed to hazards should have access to timely, understandable, accessible and actionable warnings. 

That requires investment across the entire forecast-to-action chain—from observation and forecasting to localization, communication, trusted intermediaries and the capacity to act. A warning that arrives too late, in a language people do not understand, through a channel they cannot access, or without the means to respond, is not an effective early warning. It should be treated as a core component of national resilience and a basic public service. 

Nepal must also invest in understanding its mountains. Glaciers, glacial lakes, permafrost, snow, slopes, rivers and ecosystems are changing in ways that historical experience alone cannot explain. Mountain science must combine modern observation, modelling and technology with local and Indigenous knowledge. Better knowledge is the foundation for better decisions on infrastructure, settlements, hydropower, tourism, agriculture, adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

From a powerful speech to a national climate justice strategy 

The UNGA speech provides Nepal with an important political opening to move the climate crisis from a predominantly technical agenda into a stronger political domain. The next step should be a national climate justice framework bringing together scientific evidence, climate impacts, loss and damage, vulnerability, historical responsibility, domestic action, finance, technology, legal arguments and diplomacy. 

This requires stronger institutional leadership and coordination, alongside a multidisciplinary mechanism bringing together technical, legal, economic, diplomatic, scientific and communication expertise. Federal, provincial and local governments, civil society, academia, Indigenous and local communities and the private sector must all have meaningful roles. 

The Bhotekoshi–Rasuwa reconstruction can be the first major test. The proposed Himalayan Climate Resilience Mechanism can test regional diplomacy; early warning can test whether preparedness is genuinely prioritized; mountain science can test our commitment to understanding a changing Himalaya; and climate finance can test whether Nepal can move from international demands to effective domestic delivery. 

The world may have heard Nepal’s warning from the Himalayas. The more important question now is whether Nepal itself is ready to act on it.

The author is a Nepali professional working on climate and disaster governance and justice

Nepal’s climate justice agenda often becomes particularly visible after major climate-induced disasters or around international climate conferences. With the devastating Rasuwa flood still fresh in our minds and the 81st United Nations General Assembly and COP31 approaching, Nepal has an opportunity to sharpen its case. The question is no longer whether Nepal has a legitimate claim to climate justice, but how it can make that claim more scientifically grounded, morally compelling, legally credible and politically influential.

Climate crisis: A fundamental question of justice

Climate change is not only an environmental or development challenge; it is fundamentally a question of justice. Its impacts are distributed unequally, with low-income, marginalized and vulnerable communities often suffering the greatest consequences despite contributing least to the problem. Climate justice therefore seeks solutions that address both climate change and the inequalities that shape people’s exposure, vulnerability and ability to respond.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), embedded in the UN climate regime, recognizes that countries have different historical responsibilities and capacities to address climate change. The Paris Agreement reinforces the need to limit global warming to well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to keep it to 1.5°C, while recognizing the particular vulnerabilities of developing countries and the importance of equity.

Climate justice has three interconnected dimensions: distributive, procedural and recognition justice. Distributive justice asks how the benefits and burdens of climate action are shared; procedural justice asks who participates and has influence; and recognition justice requires that the rights, knowledge, identities and needs of marginalized groups are acknowledged.

Together, these principles raise four fundamental questions: Who contributed most to climate change? Who suffers most from its impacts? Who benefits from and bears the costs of climate action? And who has the power to decide?

These questions are particularly relevant to Nepal. The country contributes very little to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet is highly exposed to floods, landslides, droughts, heat, glacier and cryosphere changes, water insecurity and other climate-related risks. These impacts increasingly affect agriculture, livelihoods, infrastructure, ecosystems and development gains. Within Nepal, poor and marginalized communities often bear a disproportionate burden and have fewer resources to prepare, respond and recover.

Saving the mountains is a global climate justice issue

Nepal’s climate justice argument should not be framed simply as a national grievance. It should be positioned within a broader global mountain-to-ocean climate justice agenda.

Scientific evidence, including the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, shows that mountain ecosystems are highly vulnerable to climate change, with serious consequences for biodiversity, water and food security, tourism, culture and human settlements. Glacier retreat and growing risks of glacial lake outburst floods threaten mountain communities, while changes in the cryosphere have implications far beyond the mountains. The Himalayas provide water and ecosystem services to vast downstream populations.

The International Court of Justice’s 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change further highlights the interconnected nature of climate impacts, including the relationship between changes in glaciers and ice and sea-level rise. What happens in the Himalayas is therefore not merely a local or national concern. Protecting mountain ecosystems is part of protecting the future of humanity.

Nepal should frame its message clearly: climate justice for the mountains and mountain people is climate justice for the world.

Nepal is already doing more than its fair share

Nepal’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is extremely small, yet it is taking significant action to maintain and expand carbon sinks and pursue low-carbon development. Its community forestry model has contributed to forest conservation and carbon sequestration, while the country is promoting hydropower, electric mobility and other clean-energy pathways. Nepal has also set an ambition of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.

This raises an important question: how much more can a low-emitting, climate-vulnerable country reasonably be expected to do without adequate international support?

Nepal’s climate justice argument should therefore combine its low historical contribution with the mitigation actions it is already undertaking, while making a clear case for international support for adaptation, resilience and loss and damage.

The injustice is becoming increasingly costly

Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, droughts, floods and landslides are already undermining agriculture, livelihoods, infrastructure and development. Climate-related disasters are estimated to cause economic losses equivalent to up to two percent of Nepal’s GDP annually. Recent events—from floods and landslides in the Kathmandu Valley to disasters in Mustang, Melamchi and Thame—demonstrate the growing scale and geographical spread of climate risks. The recent Rasuwa disaster has again exposed the devastating human and economic consequences of climate-related hazards.

Nepal estimates that it requires $73.74bn to implement its 2030 NDC 3.0 targets and an additional $47bn for priority NAP programs by 2050. Financing for loss and damage is additional. Yet access to international climate finance remains difficult because of cumbersome procedures, limited accredited institutions and weak coordination mechanisms.

This reflects a wider global injustice. Climate finance remains unevenly distributed, with adaptation significantly underfunded and vulnerable developing countries struggling to access adequate resources. The Climate Policy Initiative reported that in 2021/22, less than 3 percent of global climate finance—about $30bn—was directed to or within least developed countries.

From rhetoric to a strategic climate justice agenda

Nepal now needs to move from episodic advocacy to an institutionalized climate justice strategy.

First, Nepal should develop a national climate justice framework that systematically documents climate impacts, loss and damage, vulnerability and the country’s contribution to global mitigation. International demands should be evidence-based, prioritized and clearly linked to adaptation finance, technology transfer, capacity building and accessible, predictable finance for loss and damage.

Second, Nepal should review its policies, institutions and coordination mechanisms to identify gaps in delivering climate justice. Climate justice should be integrated into risk-informed development, resilient infrastructure, adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk reduction rather than treated as a separate agenda.

Third, Nepal should establish a permanent, multidisciplinary climate negotiation team with technical, legal, economic, diplomatic and communication expertise. A whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach would provide continuity, institutional memory and stronger negotiating capacity.

Finally, Nepal must develop a clear position on climate finance, particularly as international financing increasingly involves loans. The country should carefully assess the terms and conditionalities of such financing to ensure that climate-vulnerable communities do not bear additional debt burdens for a crisis to which they contributed little.

Nepal has a strong climate justice story. But moral authority alone will not secure justice. Science, law, evidence, diplomacy, domestic action and strategic negotiation must come together. Nepal should enter the global climate arena not only as a vulnerable country seeking support, but as a country able to demonstrate what it has already contributed, what it is doing, what it is losing, and what a fair global response must look like.

 The author is a Nepali professional working on climate and disaster governance and justice