Kathmandu: Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It has evolved into a profound crisis intertwined with economics, social justice, and global power politics.
Although developed countries pledged under the Paris Agreement to provide US$ 100 billion annually to developing nations, it took nearly a decade for that commitment to be nominally met—and even then, the amount falls far short of actual needs. Nepal alone will require an estimated US$ 46 billion by 2030 to address climate-related risks, yet total climate finance received so far hovers around just US$ 400 million.
Countries that grew wealthy through the industrial revolution are now externalizing the cost of their carbon emissions onto low-emitting nations like Nepal. Glaciers are melting, floods and landslides are intensifying, agriculture and livelihoods are under strain, yet the international climate finance needed to confront this crisis has not reached Nepal at scale.
Against this backdrop, Dr Bhim Adhikari, Senior Environmental Economist at the Canada-based International Development Research Centre, argues that Nepal must stop portraying itself as a helpless recipient of aid and instead assert its claims firmly, grounded in rights, evidence, and data.
With more than three decades of experience across the United Nations system and international institutions, Dr Adhikari frames the climate crisis as the outcome of “historical injustice.” Pollution generated elsewhere has forced Nepal to endure disasters and then borrow money at high interest rates just to cope with them. This, he warns, squeezes development budgets and deepens cycles of poverty. Climate finance was meant to correct this injustice, yet in practice, poorer countries are increasingly trapped in climate-related debt.
According to Dr Adhikari, the challenge is not only a lack of money but also Nepal’s inability to present credible, investment-ready plans and provide decisive leadership. Global mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund do hold substantial resources, but without bankable ideas, those funds remain out of reach. He stresses the need to address structural weaknesses, including climate budgets that remain confined to Kathmandu, underutilized carbon trading potential, and weak leadership across key ministries.
Asked whether climate finance is merely about demanding money, Dr Adhikari is unequivocal. This, he says, is fundamentally about justice, rooted in the principle that polluters must pay.
He emphasizes that Nepal must bring climate change into the economic mainstream and assert, with solid data, the global significance of its mountains, forests, and water systems. Only by doing so, he argues, can Nepal escape climate injustice and claim its rightful place in international negotiations.
Asked whether climate finance is merely about demanding money, Dr Adhikari is unequivocal. This, he says, is fundamentally about justice, rooted in the principle that polluters must pay. Developed nations benefited for centuries from industrialization that produced massive carbon emissions, the impacts of which are now borne by developing and island nations.
Melting mountains in Nepal and sinking islands elsewhere are direct consequences of that development. The argument that those who created the problem must finance its solution has been central to global climate debates since the 1990s. Although developed countries pledged US$ 100 billion annually in 2015, they took seven to eight years to deliver. Even now, that amount is negligible compared to today’s scale of need.
The gap between what Nepal needs and what it receives is, in his words, alarming. Nepal requires roughly US$ 46 billion by 2030 to address floods, landslides, glacial melt, and other climate risks, yet has received only about US$ 400 million across energy, adaptation, and mitigation.
This shortfall forces Nepal into a debt trap. While the country lacks sufficient funds for education and health, it is compelled to take expensive foreign loans when climate disasters strike. Paying interest for damage caused by others’ pollution, he says, is profoundly unjust.
On the growing calls to seek compensation from the global “loss and damage” fund, Dr. Adhikari explains that not every disaster automatically qualifies. Loss and damage arise when mitigation and adaptation fail and harm becomes irreversible.
He distinguishes between sudden disasters such as floods, landslides, and storms, and slow-onset impacts like desertification or glacial melt. In Nepal’s case, glacier retreat may seem gradual, but over decades it leads to irreversible loss, transforming snow-covered peaks into barren rock with no possibility of recovery.
To access loss and damage finance, Nepal must scientifically prove that its losses are climate-induced. Emotional appeals are not enough. This is where citizen science becomes crucial. Local communities are the first witnesses to climate impacts, recording rainfall changes, drying water sources, and disappearing species more accurately than satellites in many cases.
However, community observations alone are insufficient. They must be validated through scientific methods. When lived experience and scientific verification come together, they form irrefutable evidence. Dr Adhikari believes Nepal should present this combined package at global forums, much as Bhutan has successfully crafted its own distinctive climate narrative.
Even when funds do arrive, many never reach the communities most affected. Climate finance, critics say, gets stuck at the federal level or circulates in Kathmandu-based workshops. Dr Adhikari recalls a conversation with a woman farmer in Uganda who said that a mere US$ 500 would allow her to grow vegetables, while the lack of that small amount forced her to borrow a few dollars at exploitative rates.
That same US$ 500, he said, could generate US$ 4,000 in returns the following season. Such examples illustrate how small sums can transform lives at the grassroots, yet existing systems fail to deliver funds to where they matter most. He advocates for mechanisms that allow direct access for local governments and communities, including climate insurance, social protection, and concessional loans at the village level.
With Nepal’s forest cover now reaching 47 percent, carbon trading has emerged as a topic of intense interest. Dr Adhikari believes Nepal has genuine potential to benefit. Global demand for high-quality carbon credits is growing as companies seek to offset emissions they cannot eliminate.
Nepal’s forests and hydropower resources could become valuable assets. African countries offer a compelling example, with nine nations jointly launching the Africa Carbon Market Initiative, aiming to create 30 million jobs and sell one billion carbon credits over a decade.
Nepal, he says, must strengthen its carbon measurement and certification systems to enter global markets, while guarding against “green grabbing,” where communities are displaced in the name of environmental profit. Strong governance is essential.
Despite regular participation in global climate summits like COP, Nepal has struggled to translate presence into results. Dr Adhikari attributes this to a lack of political leadership and climate champions.
Nepal needs a permanent team of experts dedicated to COP negotiations and a stronger, evidence-based message—one that clearly explains how melting Himalayan glaciers threaten water security for billions across South Asia.
In Nepal, climate change is often treated as the responsibility of the forestry ministry alone. In successful cases such as Rwanda and Ethiopia, finance ministries take the lead. Without the finance minister and ministry stepping into the driver’s seat, large-scale funding will not materialize.
He also criticizes weak preparation and presentation, contrasting Nepal’s approach with leaders like Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, who has challenged the global financial system itself, or Pakistan’s leaders, who effectively drew global attention after devastating floods.
Nepal, he argues, needs a permanent team of experts dedicated to COP negotiations and a stronger, evidence-based message—one that clearly explains how melting Himalayan glaciers threaten water security for billions across South Asia.
Looking ahead, Dr. Adhikari outlines three urgent priorities. Nepal must establish a climate finance mechanism led by the Ministry of Finance, move beyond appeals for money by developing bankable projects through a national platform, and create systems that channel funds directly from Kathmandu to local governments and farmers. Without good governance, he concludes, climate finance cannot be used effectively, and without assertive leadership, Nepal will remain trapped in climate injustice.
Comment Here