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
