Nepal’s strategic priorities for COP31 must go beyond highlighting the country’s vulnerability to climate change, the risks it faces, and the losses it continues to suffer. The fundamental challenge is to transform Nepal’s position from that of a climate-vulnerable country seeking international support into a country capable of demonstrating leadership in climate action and solutions.
This raises an important question: Should Nepal merely present its vulnerabilities and losses on the international stage, or should it leverage its federal structure, local experiences, and provincial capacities to lead the development and implementation of climate solutions? Identifying risks and documenting impacts is no longer sufficient. Nepal must move towards developing practical solutions through effective coordination among federal, provincial, and local governments.
Climate change is not merely an environmental issue; it is equally a development, economic, and governance challenge. Nepal presents a significant climate paradox. Despite contributing approximately 0.03 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the country is experiencing increasingly severe impacts across its geography, economy, ecosystems, and livelihoods. Evidence from recent disasters, including the Bhote Koshi, Budhi Gandaki, and Kali Gandaki events, highlights the growing complexity of climate-related hazards.
Despite existing policies and institutions, Nepal’s climate governance continues to face unclear responsibilities, fragmented data, unequal financial and technical capacities, and weak implementation coordination.
The classification of the Bhote Koshi event as a rock-ice avalanche by Chinese authorities demonstrates the importance of scientific investigation and cross-border information sharing. However, comparable scientific information about the Budhi Gandaki event in Gorkha remains limited. This reveals a serious weakness in Nepal’s research, monitoring, and disaster investigation capabilities. Without reliable scientific evidence, effective policies and informed investment decisions remain difficult.
With approximately 16 years of professional experience in climate-related disaster research, including a PhD in geology focusing on such disasters and three and a half years of experience at the provincial level, the importance of evidence-based planning is particularly evident. Research on water-induced landslides along the Mugling–Narayanghat road, including a 2010 publication that has received more than a thousand citations, demonstrates that scientific knowledge already exists. The challenge is to consolidate available evidence and translate it into development decisions.
Similarly, although the Muglin–Pokhara journey has become considerably shorter following road expansion, frequent monsoon-related landslides along the Khaireni–Pokhara section raise questions about the resilience and reliability of the infrastructure. Development success should not be measured merely by roads constructed, buildings completed, or budgets spent. The resilience of infrastructure against future climate risks must also be considered. Climate-resilient development is not an additional cost; it is the foundation of safe, sustainable, and equitable development.
Nepal’s federal structure provides an important institutional opportunity to address these challenges. Federal, provincial, and local governments have distinct constitutional responsibilities, as outlined in the existing unbundling report. However, climate risks do not follow administrative boundaries. River basins such as the Koshi, Gandaki, and Karnali extend across several provinces, while individual watersheds connect multiple local governments. Climate-related disasters can affect upstream and downstream communities, infrastructure, settlements, and livelihoods across administrative jurisdictions. Consequently, climate governance requires coordinated planning and shared responsibility.
The federal government should lead national policy formulation, international commitments, standards, and overall coordination of climate finance. Local governments are the frontline institutions responsible for identifying community vulnerabilities and implementing local adaptation measures. Provincial governments have a strategic role in connecting these two levels through regional planning, investment prioritization, technical assistance, and coordination among local governments.
A provincial government is not simply an administrative extension of the federal government or an institution established merely to implement centrally formulated policies. It is a government in its own right, with constitutional authority and development responsibilities. Its role in translating climate risks into development priorities and coordinating shared natural resource management must be recognized. Climate considerations should therefore be systematically integrated into provincial periodic plans, Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks, annual policies and programmes, and budgets.
Gandaki Province offers useful examples of institutional efforts in this direction. Its Second Periodic Plan, which envisions a self-reliant and prosperous province with happy citizens, gives significant attention to environmental sustainability, climate adaptation, and disaster risk management. Rather than treating these subjects merely as cross-cutting concerns, the province has included a separate chapter to recognize their strategic importance.
Another important initiative, supported by UNDP, is the preparation of the State of Environment Report of Gandaki Province. Extending over 300 pages, the report consolidates available environmental information, primarily from secondary sources, supplemented by field verification and limited primary data collection. It identifies the specific challenges facing Himalayan, Hill, and urban areas, including glacier-related uncertainties, landslides, soil erosion, waste management, air pollution, and drainage. It also recommends environmental monitoring systems, common indicators, annual environmental dashboards, institutional data sharing, reviews of high-risk projects, and geology-sensitive infrastructure development.
The report’s emphasis on watershed-based planning is particularly important. The reported damage to 13 hydropower projects in the Bhote Koshi area raises serious questions about the cumulative risks of concentrating development within a single watershed. Hydropower planning must consider carrying capacity, geological conditions, cumulative environmental impacts, and disaster risks.
More balanced geographical distribution of investment, including greater attention to the development potential of regions such as Karnali, could help reduce concentrated risks while promoting equitable development. Similarly, Gandaki Province has prepared a Climate Status and Climate Finance Strategy Paper 2026, aligned with its periodic plan.
Together, the periodic plan, State of Environment Report, and climate finance strategy provide three complementary foundations: strategic direction, scientific evidence, and an implementation pathway. However, policy documents alone are insufficient. Their value depends on translating priorities into budgeted projects, institutional responsibilities, measurable indicators, and tangible outcomes.
The country should advocate for accessible and predictable climate finance, greater investment in climate-resilient mountain infrastructure, stronger mechanisms for assessing and addressing loss and damage, and international cooperation in technology transfer, research, and institutional capacity development.
Across Nepal’s seven provinces, climate priorities must reflect different geographical, economic, and social realities. A uniform approach would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, common priorities include climate risk-informed development planning, climate-resilient agriculture and food security, integrated water and watershed management, disaster risk reduction and early warning systems, resilient infrastructure and settlements, forest and biodiversity conservation, renewable energy, climate-resilient urban development and public health, climate finance, and institutional capacity development.
These priorities must be adapted to regional contexts. The Terai requires particular attention to floods, heatwaves, groundwater depletion, agriculture, and urbanization, while Himalayan and Hill regions face distinct challenges associated with glaciers, glacial lakes, landslides, and mountain ecosystems. The concept of mountain resilience should therefore remain central to Nepal’s national and international climate agenda.
Despite existing policies and institutions, Nepal’s climate governance continues to face unclear responsibilities, fragmented data, unequal financial and technical capacities, and weak implementation coordination. There is also an institutional tendency to assume that provincial and local governments need not act if the federal government is expected to lead. This mindset must change. The National Climate Council, which includes provincial and local representation, should provide a regular platform for meaningful intergovernmental consultation, rather than becoming active only when international climate conferences approach.
Provincial institutional capacities must be strengthened, responsibilities for planning and budgeting clarified, and shared natural resources managed through joint approaches. A common climate information and monitoring system should facilitate data exchange among governments, research institutions, and relevant agencies. Regular performance reviews and accountability mechanisms should focus on actual results rather than merely announced programmes and allocated budgets. These improvements should primarily strengthen existing institutions rather than create additional structures.
Climate finance is another decisive factor in translating policy commitments into action. Nepal must continue advocating for climate justice, predictable international finance, and adequate support for adaptation and loss and damage. However, international advocacy must be accompanied by stronger domestic institutional capacity. Provincial and local governments need the technical expertise to prepare project proposals, conduct feasibility studies, undertake economic and environmental assessments, establish safeguards, and measure outcomes. Transparent expenditure tracking through climate budget tagging and investment prioritization based on scientific risk assessments are equally important.
Projects supported through the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and other international mechanisms should be aligned with national systems and established standards. Greater participation by private-sector institutions, domestic financial institutions, and blended finance mechanisms should also be encouraged. The limited involvement of provinces in the preparation of national climate commitments, including the Third NDC, and the under-spending observed in some climate finance programmes demonstrate the need for stronger consultation and implementation partnerships.
Nepal can be more than a victim of climate change; it can become a leader in climate solutions. To achieve this, policies must be national, planning must be provincial, implementation must be local, and accountability must be shared.
At COP31, Nepal should advance a clear provincial agenda. Provincial and local governments must be recognized as essential implementation partners for Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans. The country should advocate for accessible and predictable climate finance, greater investment in climate-resilient mountain infrastructure, stronger mechanisms for assessing and addressing loss and damage, and international cooperation in technology transfer, research, and institutional capacity development.
The conservation of Himalayan ecosystems and watersheds should also be connected to regional and global water security. The stability of the Himalayas is not merely a national concern; it has implications for biodiversity, agricultural systems, water availability, and the livelihoods of millions of people across South Asia. Mountain resilience is therefore a shared regional and global responsibility.
Ultimately, climate leadership begins with policy commitments but is established through implementation, budget allocation, institutional capacity, and measurable results. Federalism should be viewed not merely as a governance challenge but as an opportunity to develop climate solutions tailored to the distinct circumstances of all seven provinces. Climate change must also be understood as a strategic development investment rather than an additional cost, since investments in prevention, adaptation, and resilience can reduce future economic and social losses.
Nepal therefore needs a unified national framework—a One National Climate Vision, supported by seven provincial climate action frameworks and implementation partnerships across all 753 local governments. The objective should not be to create more institutions or policy documents, but to make existing arrangements effective through clear responsibilities, adequate resources, shared information, coordinated action, and accountability. The country must move from responding to disasters after they occur towards identifying and reducing risks before development takes place, and from a relief-and-reconstruction mindset towards a development model based on prevention, adaptation, and resilience.
Nepal can be more than a victim of climate change; it can become a leader in climate solutions. To achieve this, policies must be national, planning must be provincial, implementation must be local, and accountability must be shared.
(Edited excerpts from the remarks delivered by Dr. Krishna Devkota, Vice-Chairperson of the Gandaki Province Policy and Planning Commission, at a symposium under the theme “Nepal After UNGA: From Climate Victims to Climate Leadership” organized by the Institute for Strategic and Socio-Economic Research (ISSR) and Khabarhub in Kathmandu on Monday.)
Comment