Deliver and Demand: Strengthening Climate Finance Governance in Nepal

https://www.spotlightnepal.com/2026/09/30/deliver-and-demand-strengthening-climate-finance-governance-nepal/

Introduction

While addressing the 81^st United Nations General Assembly, Nepal’s Prime Minister called on the global community that the climate finance mechanism remains grossly inadequate and that accessing the fund is a bureaucratic maze. The United Nations has established financial mechanisms to provide resources to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. Loss and Damage, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) are the major climate-finance mechanisms. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate finance supports climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.  Based on submitted funding proposals, the governing bodies of climate-finance funds, such as the GCF Board and GEF Council, approve financing for eligible projects and programs in developing countries. Understanding climate-finance expenditure patterns from the global to the national level is essential for effectively managing and utilizing climate funds. However, Nepal lacks a consolidated analysis of climate-finance expenditure in relation to global trends. This article therefore synthesizes evidence on climate-finance expenditure, key enablers and barriers, and strategies for improving the delivery and mobilization of climate finance in Nepal..

Climate finance expenditure scenario    

Climate finance is about investments to undertake to transition the world’s economy to a low-carbon path, to reduce greenhouse gas concentration levels, and to build resilience of countries to climate change(Hong et al., 2020). Climate finance gaps are prevalent at both the global (Wabwile & Ondabu, 2025) and national level (Dhakal & Pradhan, 2023). Even the available resources through the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) have not been effectively mobilized, allocated, and utilized (Wabwile & Ondabu, 2025).  Nepal’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 3.0 estimates that approximately US$90 billion will be required for climate change mitigation and adaptation through 2035 (Government of Nepal, 2025). Analysis of data from the Climate Funds Update (2026) revealed that, as of February 2026, Nepal had 136 approved climate-finance projects totaling US$428.62 million. The concerning issue is that out of the total approved climate budget in Nepal, only 36.5%  had been expended. Therefore, annual investment must increase many times over, and rapidly, to achieve globally agreed climate goals and initiate a truly systemic transition across global and national economies (Buchner et al, 2019). Over and above, mechanisms for effective delivery of climate finance need to be figured out at the international as well as national level. The following sections have attempted to identify key enablers, barriers, and recommend strategies for effective management of climate finance in Nepal.       

 

Enabler and barrier  

Nepal has developed a range of policies, institutional mechanisms, and financial-management instruments to strengthen climate finance governance. According to the Ministry of Finance (2026), Nepal is advancing climate-resilient development by integrating climate finance into its ODA framework. The integration of climate finance into development planning demonstrates the Government of Nepal’s commitment to climate action. To enhance transparency and accountability of climate expenditures, Nepal has prepared several key policy instruments, including the Climate Change Budget Code (2012), Climate Change Financing Framework (2017), Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR), covering FY 2015/16–2024/25, and NDC 3.0. The Climate Change Budget Code has also been integrated into Nepal’s annual Red Book, providing a mechanism for identifying and tracking climate-related budget allocations. Moreover, Nepal has established climate-finance units and multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms at the federal and provincial levels, providing a foundation for effective climate-finance management and utilization.

However, weak institutional and governance systems constrain the effective and timely delivery, disbursement, and utilization of climate finance at both international and national levels. Wabwile and Ondabu (2025) identified bureaucratic delays, complex administrative procedures, and fragmented governance as key global barriers to the timely delivery of approved climate finance. At the national level, Dhakal and Pradhan (2023) identified inefficiencies in Nepal’s institutional mechanisms as one of the factors contributing to low climate-finance disbursement. Dhakal & Pradhan, (2023) attribute weak inter-ministerial coordination, limited technical capacity, and reliance on international consultants, inadequate dedicated climate-finance staff, frequent staff transfers, and unclear institutional roles under federalism as key barriers for financial expenditure in Nepal. In addition, climate-finance projects have also faced disbursement challenges due to cumbersome project-development procedures and lengthy cabinet approval processes.   Moreover, many climate-finance projects focus on capacity development through workshops, seminars, studies, and other “soft” activities. These activities may receive lower priority than “hardware” infrastructure projects, potentially contributing to lower disbursement of climate funds.

 

Recommendations  

As policy, institutional, and financial frameworks are already in place, the Government of Nepal should focus its forthcoming efforts on translating these policy instruments into effective action. The Government should reform and simplify the delivery mechanisms for climate finance based on the importance and urgency of interventions. In the immediate term, priority should be given to vulnerable areas and communities in climate-finance allocation; strengthening inter-ministerial and intergovernmental coordination and clarifying roles and responsibilities at all levels; breaking institutional silos through stronger sectoral engagement and cross-sectoral coordination; and simplifying project approval and disbursement procedures to reduce bureaucratic delays. In the medium term, Nepal should promote evidence-based decision-making through improved research, data, and impact assessment; strengthen institutional governance for timely, transparent, and effective climate-finance delivery; and improve the transparency and accountability of climate-finance tracking and reporting systems. In the long term, the Government should build national technical capacity and ownership while reducing dependence on external consultants, strengthen policy–implementation linkages through effective intergovernmental coordination and collaboration, and ensure that climate finance reaches vulnerable and underserved communities by strengthening their participation in local development planning and decision-making processes.

 

Conclusion

Nepal’s climate-finance challenge is not only a problem of insufficient international finance; it is also a challenge of converting available and approved finance into timely, effective, and accountable expenditure. Nepal should adopt a two-pronged strategy to improve access to international climate finance while ensuring the effective utilization of the national climate budget. Merely advocating for increased access to international finance will not produce the desired outcomes. Therefore, evidence-based advocacy at the global level, combined with efforts to strengthen participatory, transparent, and accountable climate-finance governance at the national level, is essential for effective climate-budget execution. The Government of Nepal should therefore prioritize implementing existing climate-finance frameworks by simplifying governance and financial-management systems from the federal to the local level. Ultimately, a simplified and effective climate-finance expenditure system could provide useful lessons for other developing countries facing similar challenges.

 

References

·       Buchner, B., Clark, A., Falconer, A., Macquarie, R., Meattle, C., Tolentino, R., & Wetherbee, C. (2019). Global landscape of climate finance 2019. Climate Policy Initiative.

·       Dhakal, S., & Pradhan, M. (2023). Identification and prioritization of barriers to access international climate finance for Nepal. Asia-Pacific Sustainable Development Journal, 30(1),

·       Climate Funds Update. (2026). Data dashboard. https://climatefundsupdate.org/data-dashboard

·       Government of Nepal. (2025). Nationally determined contribution (NDC) 3.0. Ministry of Forests and Environment. UNFCCC – Nepal NDC 3.0

·       Hong, H., Karolyi, G. A., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2020). Climate Finance. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1011–1023. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz146Ministry of Finance. (2026). Development cooperation report 2024/25. Government of Nepal. Development Cooperation Report 2024/25 (PDF)

·       Wabwile, W. A. E., & Ondabu, I. T. (2025). Funding climate action: A systematic review of climate finance efficiency and impact. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, 8(4), 2516–2524. https://doi.org/10.47191/JEFMS/V8-I4-49

बाघ र मानिस बीच सह अस्तित्वको नयाँ बाटो

 https://www.naturekhabar.com/ne/32344.html

पृष्ठभूमि

जैविक विविधताको विनाश संसारका लागि चिन्ताको बिषय बनेको छ। सन् २०२० लाई आधार वर्ष मानि सन् २०३० सम्ममा जैविक विविधतामा थप ह्रास हुन नदिने भन्ने विश्वव्यापी प्रतिबद्धता रहेको छ। जैविक बिबिध ता पुनर्स्थापना गर्ने यो प्रतिबद्धतालाई दक्षिण एसियाले बाघ संरक्षणको माध्यमबाट योगदान तथा हौसला प्रदान गरेको छ । सन् २०१० मा विश्वमा करिब ३,२०० बाघ रहेको अनुमान गरिएकोमा यो संख्या हाल करिब ४,५०० पुगेको छ। नेपाल, भारत र भुटानमा पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा बाघको संख्यामा उल्लेख्य वृद्धि भएको छ। तर संख्यामा वृद्धि भएसंगै बाघको आक्रमणबाट मृत्यु तथा घाइते हुनेहरुको संख्या समेत उल्लेख्य रहेको पाइन्छ
। अबका दिनमा नेपालले अपनाउने रणनीतिले बाघ संरक्षण साथै यसबाट हुन जाने मानब क्षति कम भन्दा कम गराउने तर्फ केन्द्रित हुनुपर्दछ ।

संरक्षणको अवधारणामा आएको परिवर्तन
नेपालमा बाघ संरक्षणको प्रारम्भिक अभ्यास आदिबासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायलाई अलग राख्ने सोचमा आधारित थियो। बाघ संरक्षणलाई केन्द्रमा राख्दै संरक्षित क्षेत्रहरु स्थापना गरिनुका साथै र उक्त क्षेत्रमा मानव गतिविधिलाई निरुत्साहित गरियो र कतिपय अवस्थामा स्थानीय समुदायलाई आफ्नो परम्परागत भूमि तथा जीविकोपार्जनका अधिकारबाट बिमुख समेत गराइएको भन्ने सुन्नमा पाइन्छ । यसरी आदिबासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायलाई बाहिर राखेर गरिएको बाघ संरक्षणको प्रयास कालान्तरमा असफल हुने आंकलन गरियो । बिगतका संरक्षणको सिकाइको जगमा मध्यवर्ती क्षेत्र, भू–परिधि तथा पारमार्थिक प्रणालीमा आधारित संरक्षणका अवधारणालाई कार्यान्वयन गर्दै समुदायको सहभागितामा बाघ संरक्षणको गतिबिधि अगाडी बढाइयो।

यी जनसहभागिता सहित संरक्षणको नविनतम अवधारणाले बाघको संरक्षणलाई संरक्षित क्षेत्रको सीमाभन्दा बाहिर विस्तार गर्न समेत सहयोग गर्यो, फलस्वरूप नेपालमा संरक्षण क्षेत्र बाहिर समेत उ संख्यामा बाघ पाइन थाले । विश्व मानचित्रमा नेपाल बाघ पाइने मुलुकमा अग्रस्थान ओगट्न सफल भएको छ र यसले नेपालको गरिमा उँचो बनाउन धेरै मद्दत पुर्याएको छ । तर बाघ संरक्षणको सफलताको कथा सँगै यसको सामाजिक आयाममा परेका नकारात्मक प्रभावहरू पनि सतहमा देखिन थालेका छन्, जसलाई सम्बोधन गर्नु आजको टड्कारो आवश्यकता रहेको छ ।

मानब र बाघले प्रयोग गर्ने भू–क्षेत्रहरु “ओभरल्याप” हुन थालेका छन् । बस्ति बिकासका लागि गरिएका मानब जन्य क्रियाकलापका कारण संरक्षण क्षेत्र बाहिर रहेका बाघको बासस्थानहरू खण्डीकरण हुँदै गएका छन्, एकातर्फ भने अर्कोतर्फ मानव बस्तीमा बाघको बढ्दो आवागमनका कारण, मानविय क्षति बढ्न गई मानब र बाघ बिचको द्वन्द्व हाल दिनहरुमा थप जटिल बन्दै गएका छन् । चितवन राष्ट्रिय निकुञ्जको पछिल्लो पाँच वर्षका बार्षिक प्रतियोगिताहरुमा उल्लेखित आँकडा केलाउँदा बाघको आक्रमणसँग सम्बन्धित ३७ वटा घटना भएको देखिन्छ, जसमध्ये २२ जनाको मृत्यु भएको छ। यी बाघसँग सम्बन्धित घटनाका ३७ पीडित मध्ये २२ जना अर्थात ५९.४ प्रतिशत आदिवासी जनजाति थिए । यो आँकडाले चितवन राष्ट्रिय निकुञ्ज बाहिर मानव–बाघ द्वन्द्वको भार आदिवासी जनजातिमा असमान रूपमा बढी परेको देखाउँछ। लैङ्गिक दृष्टिले हेर्दा पनि १६ जना महिला पीडित मध्ये, १० जना आदिवासी जनजाति र ६ जना गैर–आदिवासी थिए। समग्रमा, आदिवासी जनजाति उल्लेख्य रूपमा बाघबाट प्रभावित भएका देखिन्छ ।

यसले एउटा महत्त्वपूर्ण तथ्यतर्फ संकेत गर्छ कि मानव–बाघ द्वन्द्व केवल वन्यजन्तु संरक्षण वा मानव सुरक्षाको विषय मात्र होइन; यो सामाजिक र लैंगिक न्यायसँग पनि जोडिएको विषय हो। साथै, यी तथ्यबाट के पनि पुस्टि हुन्छ भने संरक्षणको सफलता केवल बाघको संख्या बढ्नुमा मापन गरिनु हुँदैन। संरक्षणको रणनीति बनाउँदा यसबाट हुने लाभ र हानि कसरी बाँडिएको छ भन्ने प्रश्न पनि उत्तिकै महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्छ। विशेषगरी संरक्षणको जिम्मेवारी र लागत बढी वहन गर्ने आदिवासी जनजाति तथा स्थानीय समुदायले संरक्षणबाट प्राप्त लाभमा न्यायपूर्ण हिस्सा पाउनु पर्दछ । संरक्षणका निर्णयमा उनीहरूलाई सहभागी गराउने मात्र होइन, निर्णय प्रक्रियामा प्रभाव पार्ने र निर्णय गर्ने अधिकारमा पनि उनीहरूको पहुँच सुनिश्चित हुनुपर्छ। तसर्थ मानव–बाघ बीचको द्वन्द्व न्यूनीकरण गर्दै सह-अस्तित्वको रणनीति अवलम्बन गर्नु अहिलेको आवश्यकता हो। मानव र बाघ बीचको द्वन्द्व व्यवस्थापनमा सामाजिक तथा सांस्कृतिक अवस्थालाई ध्यानमा राखिएको व्यवस्थापन बढी प्रभावकारी हुने हालैका अध्ययनहरूले समेत देखाएका छन्। त्यसैले मानव–बाघ बीचको द्वन्द लाई न्यूनीकरण गर्नको लागि बाघको परम्परागत बासस्थान तथा पानीका स्रोतको उचित व्यवस्थापनसँगै स्थानीय समुदायको सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक र जीविकोपार्जनका आयामहरूलाई एकीकृत संरक्षणको अवधारणामा व्यवस्थापन गरिनु अत्यावश्यक छ।

संरक्षित क्षेत्रभन्दा बाहिर समेत बाघको उल्लेख्य उपस्थिति देखिनुले एउटा महत्त्वपूर्ण तथ्य उजागर गर्छ कि बाघको भविष्य राष्ट्रिय निकुञ्ज र संरक्षित क्षेत्रको सीमाभित्र मात्र सुरक्षित हुन सक्दैन। त्यसैले अब बाघ संरक्षणका प्रयासलाई संरक्षित क्षेत्रको सीमाभन्दा बाहिर विस्तार गर्दै सामुदायिक वन, निजी जग्गा, कृषि भूमि तथा अन्य मानव–प्रकृति अन्तर सम्बन्धित भू–दृश्यलाई समेत समेट्ने एकीकृत क्षेत्रगत संरक्षण रणनीति अबलम्बन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। यसका लागि क्षेत्रमा आधारित संरक्षणका उपायहरूको (OECM) अवधारणालाई अपनाउँदै संरक्षणमा आदिवासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायका अधिकार स्थापित हुनेगरी संरक्षणको रणनीति तय गर्नुपर्ने आवश्यकता छ । अर्थात, मानब अधिकारमा आधारित बाघ संरक्षणको दृष्टिकोणलाई बढावा दिनुपर्दछ । संरक्षणमा स्थानीय समुदायसँग परामर्श गर्नु मात्र पर्याप्त हुँदैन; निर्णय प्रक्रियामा अर्थपूर्ण सहभागिता, संरक्षणको जिम्मेवारीमा साझेदारी र संरक्षणबाट प्राप्त लाभको न्यायोचित वितरण समेत सुनिश्चित गर्नु आवश्यक हुन्छ ।

नेपालले यहीँबाट संरक्षणको अर्को नयाँ उदाहरण प्रस्तुत गर्न सक्छ—संरक्षित क्षेत्रभन्दा बाहिर समेत आदिवासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायका अधिकारलाई सम्मान गर्दै, मानव अधिकारमा आधारित र सहभागी मूलक बाघ संरक्षणको नवीन अभ्यास। उसो त, विश्वव्यापी रूपमा स्थानीय समुदायलाई संरक्षणका ‘लाभग्राही’ मात्र नभई ‘अधिकारधारी’ का रूपमा स्वीकार गर्नुपर्ने अवधारणा बलियो हुँदै गएको छ। जैविक विविधता संरक्षण र मानव अधिकारलाई एकअर्काका परिपूरकका रूपमा लिन थालिएको छ। पुस्तौंदेखि प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा आश्रित समुदायसँग जल, जमिन, जंगल, वन्यजन्तु र पारिस्थितिकीय प्रणालीबारे गहिरो ज्ञान हुन्छ। उनीहरूका परम्परागत संस्था, नियम र व्यवस्थापन अभ्यास प्राकृतिक स्रोत संरक्षणका महत्त्वपूर्ण आधार बन्न सक्छन्। धेरै ठाउँमा यिनै समुदाय चोरी–सिकार, वन अतिक्रमण र अवैध रूख कटानी विरुद्ध पहिलो सुरक्षा पंक्तिमा उभिएका हुन्छन्। त्यसैले संरक्षणमा आदिवासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायको परम्परागत अधिकारको सम्मान, अर्थपूर्ण सहभागिता, स्वतन्त्र, पूर्व सूचित तथा सचेत सहमति (FPIC), न्यायपूर्ण लाभ बाँडफाँट र स्थानीय ज्ञानको सम्मान नीतिगत तहबाटै सुनिश्चित गर्न आवश्यक छ।

दक्षिण एसियाका देशहरूले यस दिशामा नीतिगत तहबाट विभिन्न प्रयास अघि बढाएका छन्। नेपालमा आदिवासी जनजातिको अधिकार, सहभागिता, परम्परागत ज्ञान र समुदायमा आधारित प्राकृतिक स्रोत व्यवस्थापनलाई नीति तथा अभ्यासमा समेट्ने प्रयास भइरहेको छ। सामुदायिक वन मार्गदर्शन, २०८२ ले प्राकृतिक श्रोत व्यवस्थापन निर्णय प्रक्रियामा महिला, आदिवासी जनजाति तथा सीमान्तकृत समूहको सहभागितालाई प्रोत्साहन गरेको छ । भारतले अनुसूचित जनजाति तथा अन्य परम्परागत वनवासी (वन अधिकारको मान्यता) ऐन, २००६ मार्फत वनमा आश्रित आदिवासी तथा स्थानीय समुदायको भूमि, जीविकोपार्जन, वन स्रोत उपयोग र सामुदायिक वन व्यवस्थापनसम्बन्धी अधिकारलाई कानुनी मान्यता दिएको छ। भुटानमा पनि समुदायमा आधारित प्राकृतिक स्रोत व्यवस्थापन, स्थानीय सहभागिता र दिगो जीविकोपार्जनलाई संरक्षण नीतिसँग जोड्ने अभ्यास अघि बढेको छ।

अब संरक्षण सफलताको मापदण्ड बदलौँ

संरक्षणको वास्तविक सफलता त्यतिबेला मानिन्छ, जब बाघ पनि सुरक्षित हुन्छ, उनीहरूको बासस्थान पनि संरक्षित हुन्छ र संरक्षण क्षेत्रसँग जोडिएका मानिस पनि सुरक्षित, सम्मानित र अधिकारसम्पन्न हुन्छन्। बाघको संख्या, बासस्थानको अवस्था र चोरी–सिकार नियन्त्रणलाई संरक्षण सफलताका महत्त्वपूर्ण सूचक मानिँदै आएको छ। अब बाघ संरक्षणको सफलताको सूचिलाई बृहत्तर बनाउनुपर्दछ र यसमा आदिवासी जनजाति तथा स्थानीय समुदायको मानव तथा जीविकोपार्जनसम्बन्धी अधिकारलाई समेत समेट्नुपर्दछ। साथै, संरक्षणको सफलता बाघको संख्यामा मात्र होइन, संरक्षणबाट हुने लाभ र त्यसबाट सिर्जित क्षतिको न्यायोचित वितरणलाई समेत समेटिएको सूचकका आधारमा मापन गर्नुपर्दछ। नेपालले यस्तो सूचिलाई विश्वसामु पैरवी गर्नुपर्दछ र बाघसँगै मानिसलाई पनि सुरक्षित राख्ने, संरक्षण क्षेत्र बाहिरका भू–उपयोग तथा समुदायलाई समेत समेट्ने र मानव अधिकारमा आधारित संरक्षण रणनीति कार्यान्वयन गर्ने दिशामा नेतृत्वदायी भूमिका निर्वाह गर्नु वाञ्छनीय देखिन्छ ।

Participatory Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning: A Pathway to Climate Justice and Resilient Development in Rasuwa

                                                                                                                                            Ek Raj Sigdel*

 Introduction

The devastating floods in Rasuwa have once again exposed Nepal’s growing vulnerability to climate-induced disasters. As rescue and relief operations continue, an equally important question confronts the country: will Nepal rebuild what was lost or will it rebuild differently?  The Government of Nepal has led rescue and relief operations and supported affected communities since the first days of the disaster, which has affected thousands of people and caused extensive damage to homes, property, and infrastructure. As the immediate rescue and relief phase approaches completion, Nepal is now entering the recovery and rehabilitation phase. Recovery should not simply focus on replacing infrastructure, including damaged houses, hydropower, roads, and bridges. Rather, it should help reduce future disaster risks. Nepal’s recovery effort should therefore begin with Risk-Sensitive Land Use Plans (RSLUP) on the foundation of risk assessment and supported by resilient infrastructure and nature-based solutions. Additionally, Nepal must use this moment to bring international attention to climate-induced disasters and call for collaboration.

Build Back Better

The UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2025 emphasizes that investing in prevention and preparedness is far more cost-effective than relying primarily on disaster response. This requires integrating disaster risk-informed planning into sustainable development pathways to prevent and prepare for future hazards. This is where the principle of Build Back Better (BBB) becomes important. As defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), BBB refers to “The use of the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalization of livelihoods, economies and the environment”. Recovery should therefore consider livelihoods, local economies, social networks, cultural practices, public services and locally available human resources, their knowledge and technologies.  Nepal should resist the temptation to simply rebuild what was destroyed. Reconstructing houses, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure in the same locations and following the same designs could reproduce the risks of future disasters. Instead, recovery should aim to create safer settlements, climate-resilient infrastructure, restored ecosystems, and more secure livelihoods.

 

Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment

As seen in the Rasuwa that the flooding can interact with landslides, erosion, unstable slopes, sediment movement, and changing river systems. Risk assessment should therefore begin with examining hazard, exposure, and vulnerability and withstand capacity. The second step should involve analyzing comprehensive multi-hazard risk data. It should identify where hazards are likely to occur, who and what are exposed, why and which communities and infrastructure are vulnerable, and what capacities exist to reduce and mitigate the risks. The assessment should then be translated into risk-zone maps at Basin level. With GIS support, these maps should guide decisions on where settlements, roads, hydropower projects, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure can be safely developed. The assessment should also identify how these structures can be safeguarded through utilizing nature-based solutions, including conservation, restoration and management of ecosystems. High-risk areas should be avoided for new residential and commercial development where risks cannot be reduced to an acceptable level. Early warning systems are essential for protecting lives from floods, but they are not sufficient to ensure the long-term safety and sustainability of communities and ecosystems. Lessons from past disasters highlight the need to prepare for future hazards through RSLUP, including zoning to guide development and reduce disaster risks.

 

Risk-Sensitive Land-Use Planning

The Risk-zone maps at the basin level would act as the foundation of RSLUP. Unlike a conventional land-use plan, a risk-sensitive plan considers disaster risk when deciding how land should be used. It can identify areas suitable for development, areas requiring controlled development, areas requiring risk-reduction measures, and areas that should be protected or restored. Where relocation is necessary, it should be carefully planned and supported by adequate compensation, livelihood opportunities and access to essential services. Nepal should adopt a basin-level approach to disaster recovery and land-use planning, particularly in the vulnerable Trishuli Basin and connected river systems. Basin-level planning should bring together information on geology, river dynamics, slope stability, land capability, forests, wetlands, settlements, infrastructure, climate projections, and cumulative environmental impacts. RSLUP, together with nature-based solutions, is often more cost-effective than repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure after disasters.

 

Enhanced Early Warning System   

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change: Synthesis Report (2023) clearly states that human-caused climate change has already resulted in losses and damage to nature and people, with vulnerable communities disproportionately affected. According to a recent press release by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) regarding the Rasuwa flood, ICIMOD and partner institutions in Nepal and China are investigating the science behind the event and its triggers. The government, media, and scientists are rightly focusing on the causes of the disaster, early warning systems, and rescue and relief operations. These are critically important, but equally important is post-disaster management, particularly preparedness and recovery, which often receive less attention. Early warning systems are essential for saving lives, but they cannot prevent development in unsafe locations. Nepal must complement early warning investments with RSLUP that reduces exposure before disaster occurs.

 

Whole-of-Government, Whole-of-Society Approach

The recovery management requires concerted efforts from local to national to international levels. No single institution can manage the entire recovery process.  The recovery process should be guided by a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that necessitates coordination and collaboration among state and non-state actors.  The approach aims at creating ownership across all sections of society and ultimately leading to a sustainable and equitable development pathway. Nepal needs a whole-of-government and whole-of-system approach involving federal, provincial and local governments, communities, academia, the private sector and civil society from the very beginning of the recovery planning process. The federal government should provide national policies, standards, technical expertise, financing mechanisms and overall coordination. Provincial governments should help coordinate basin-level RSLUP. Local governments should lead participatory planning and implementation processes because they are closest to affected communities. Further, the affected people should not be treated simply as beneficiaries. Instead, they need to be treated as rights holders and important sources of knowledge and skills about local rivers, slopes, forests, settlements, seasonal hazards, livelihoods, and local environmental conditions. Their knowledge should be combined with scientific evidence when preparing RSLUP. Academia and research institutions active in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction should also be engaged in hazard assessment, mapping, and infrastructure design and monitoring. Strong coordination, transparent decision-making, and effective enforcement of RSLUP and building regulations will be essential for successful implementation.

 

A Test Case Ahead of the UN General Assembly

The tragedy in Rasuwa should not become another chapter in Nepal’s long history of disaster recovery. Instead, it should become the moment when the country finally places risk at the center of development planning.   The post-disaster period provides a rare opportunity to correct past mistakes, redesign vulnerable infrastructure, improve land-use planning, restore ecosystems, strengthen local institutions, and make public investment more resilient. If Nepal can transform this recovery effort into a model of RSLUP and climate resilience, the lives lost today may help protect future generations from similar catastrophes. To advance its climate justice agenda, Nepal should consider bringing forward a concept proposal at the High-Level Session of the 81^st United Nations General Assembly to promote basin-level participatory Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP).

*Independent Nepali professional working in Environment and Climate Change Policy and Governance

Adding the Smoky Ingredient: Enhancing Chitwan’s Conservation Recipe

 https://www.naturekhabar.com/en/32300.html

Ekraj Sigdel

Environment and Tourism Governance Specialist

Introduction

National Parks across the countries are established for the common objectives of conserving globally significance wildlife species and ecosystems together with promoting sustainable tourism. Chitwan Naitonal Park (CNP), Nepal and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), USA are managing their natural resources successfully with different approach.  Nepal’s CNP has followed inclusive and participatory path while the GSMNP is still adopting exclusionary approach. Based on the recent observation and interaction with local in GSMNP, I have tried to analyze what lesson from GSMNP can be beneficial to CNP, Nepal

 

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park

The GSMNP with an area of about 2108 km² was established in 1934 to protect an exceptional temperate hardwood forest ecosystem, scenic landscapes and promoting recreation. Concerned about extensive resource extraction and degradation of this globally significant hardwood ecosystem, the U.S. National Park Service, together with other authorities, acquired large areas of privately owned land, including holdings of timber companies and land associated with local communities, while establishing the park. Today, the GSMNP are internationally recognized for their extensive hardwood forests, exceptional biodiversity, black bears, elk and outstanding scenic landscape values. The park was designated as World Heritage Site in 1983.The park’s conservation vision was based on the premise that protecting the Smokies’ forests, wildlife and natural beauty would generate greater long-term public and economic benefits than continued large-scale resource extraction.

 Over time, conservation value has been enhanced through implementing scientific research, and ecological monitoring in partnerships with Friends of the Smokies. The Federal Government through USA National Park Service managed the national park with its own resources. The Park has not invested the federal government for community development adjacent to the boundaries.    GSMNP is predominantly federally managed, with limited formal community participation. The Park does not raise money from tourists’ entry fee. The park offers diverse tourism activities, including historic Appalachian heritage, jungle drives, and family recreation, picnicking and hiking along the famous Appalachian Trail. The park’s distinctive “smoky” appearance, created by natural mist rising from its dense forests, has further strengthened its cultural identity and tourism appeal. Attracting about 11-12 million visitors annually, GSMNP has become one of the major tourism destinations and an important economic driver for surrounding gateway communities and regional development. Visitor spending supports local employment, businesses and income opportunities. The Smokies demonstrate how long-term biodiversity conservation, scenic and cultural values, recreation and tourism can be integrated to generate wider public and economic benefits.

 

 Nepal's Chitwan National Park

Chitwan National Park (CNP), covering 952.63 km², was established in 1973 as Nepal’s first national park and has become an internationally recognized example of conserving globally significant wildlife species, including Bengal tigers, greater one-horned rhinoceroses and numerous other species and ecosystems. The Park was established to safeguard forests from further encroachment from hill migrants. The government of Nepal removed a village clusters while declaring the National Park. The park was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1984 for its outstanding natural values.

 CNP’s initial conservation approach was largely based on exclusion, with limited consideration of local communities and their resource needs. Over time, this approach has evolved toward landscape-level conservation that recognizes people as an integral part of the ecosystem. To strengthen community participation, the Government of Nepal established a formal buffer-zone system and allocates 30–50% of park tourism revenue to community development activities in buffer-zone areas, while the remaining revenue is retained through the government system to support conservation and park management. Dedicated park officials oversee both biodiversity conservation and buffer-zone development, reflecting an institutional effort to link conservation with community development.

Tourism, particularly wildlife safaris and other recreational activities, provides significant economic benefits to the government, private sector and local communities. With about 300,000 visitors annually, tourism has become an important source of employment, income and local economic activity. Despite these achievements, CNP continues to face challenges, including human–wildlife conflict, livestock and crop losses, injuries and deaths, inadequate research and monitoring, and limited institutional capacity to effectively integrate tourism development with long-term biodiversity conservation.

 

Compare and Contrast

The GSMNP and CNP of Nepal share several important characteristics. Both were established primarily to conserve important biodiversity and are managed through national-level protected-area institutions supported by legislation, regulations and government employee. Both have received international recognition for their outstanding natural values, with the GSMNP designated a World Heritage Site in 1983 and CNP in 1984. Tourism and recreation are important components of both systems and contribute to the economies of surrounding communities. Likewise, both protected-area systems have evolved from relatively protection-oriented mindset. Despite these similarities, the major difference lies in the historical context, institutional capacity and integration of tourism with conservation. The GSMNP was established in a landscape that was largely privately owned and heavily affected by commercial logging, requiring extensive land acquisition and relocation of traditional residents. In contrast, Nepal's CNP generally established primarily on government-managed landscapes through forcefully removing few settlements. Another difference is that the Smokies have developed a highly specialized system of scientific research, long-term ecological monitoring, visitor management, and recreation. 

In CNP, on the other hand, biodiversity conservation remains the principle objective, while tourism development and visitor management are not always sufficiently integrated into protected-area planning. Instead, the CNP institutionalized community based organizations as buffer zone. CNP also faces more pronounced human–wildlife conflicts and livelihood-related tensions around protected areas. In contrast, GSMNP faces different types of human–wildlife conflict, but they are generally less severe. Despite being only twice the size of CNP, SMNP attracts approximately 35 times as many tourists. The park is federally administered, while state and local governments play important roles in the surrounding tourism and gateway economy, while sole responsibility has traditionally been given to the federal government in CNP.

 

Key Learning

Nepal can learn from GSMNP by strengthening science-based conservation, long-term ecological monitoring, and dedicated tourism management systems to build a more sustainable and equitable protected-area model. The comparison demonstrates that no single protected-area model can be replicated across countries, as governance and management must reflect each country’s historical, institutional and socio-cultural context. Both parks have achieved notable conservation success, as recognized through their World Heritage status. While the Smokies offer valuable lessons in scientific management, tourism planning and institutional partnerships, Nepal’s buffer-zone and community-development approach provides an important foundation for linking conservation with local livelihoods. Given CNP’s relatively low visitor numbers compared with the Smokies, there is considerable scope to promote well-managed and responsible tourism that generates employment, increases local economic benefits and strengthens park–community partnerships. By combining these lessons with its established community-based approach, CNP can demonstrate how conservation, community development and sustainable tourism can reinforce one another. 

Other Effective Area Based Conservation (OECM) Processes in South-Asia

South Asia have already initiated the Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECM) recognition processes.  According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Decision 14/8 (2018); OECM is defined as:

“A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.”

The following steps are being undertaken across South Asia to advance the identification, recognition, and effective implementation of OECMs.

Step-wise Process for OECM Identification, Recognition and Reporting

• Step 1. Identification:  Identify potential OECMs outside formal protected areas, including community-managed, Indigenous, private, government-managed, and other conserved areas.
• Step 2. Screening: Screen candidate areas against the CBD/IUCN OECM definition and criteria.
• Step 3. Participation and Rights: Engage rights-holders and stakeholders through inclusive participation; respect customary governance systems and ensure Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) where applicable.
• Step 4. Assessment: Assess the area’s governance and management arrangements, biodiversity values, and evidence of positive and sustained long-term conservation outcomes.
• Step 5. Recognition: Verify qualifying sites through an appropriate national institutional mechanism and formally recognize them as OECMs.
• Step 6. Documentation: Document site boundaries, location, governance and management arrangements, biodiversity values, conservation outcomes, and other required information.
• Step 7. Reporting: Submit verified OECM information through the national reporting mechanism to the World Database on OECMs (WD-OECM).
• Step 8. Monitoring and Reassessment: Monitor biodiversity outcomes, governance, and management effectiveness, and periodically reassess sites to ensure they continue to meet the criteria for OECM status.

Nepal has already developed an OECM Plan of Action and OECM Guidelines. Capacity-building and awareness-raising activities are ongoing through various stakeholders, including government agencies, INGOs, civil society organizations, and Indigenous Peoples’ networks. In addition, OECM approaches are being piloted at the local level by organizations such as WWF, IUCN, NTNC, and Indigenous Peoples’ national networks. However, to date, no area in Nepal has been formally recognized as an OECM.

For more information about OECMs, please visit the OECM Platform, https://oecm.info/ a one-stop resource for information and guidance on OECMs. 

सेतीको धमिलोपन: कमजोर शासन र वातावरणीय न्यायको संकट

एकराज सिग्देल

शुक्लागण्डकी नगरपालिकाको बिचोबिच भागबाट बग्ने धमिलो पानिले, त्यस नगरपालिकाको शासन व्यवस्था वातावरणीय न्यायमा आधारित छैन भन्ने कुराको संकेत हो । सेती नदीमा देखिएको धमिलोपन केवल वातावरणीय चुनौती मात्र नभई स्थानीय शासनव्यवस्थामा रहेको कमजोरी पनि हो । यो भनेको नगरपालिकाबाट नदि केन्द्रित कार्यक्रम तथा रकम बिनियोजन नहुनु हो, अर्थात गरिब तथा पानीमा आश्रित समुदायलाई बिकास प्रक्रियामा अनदेखा गर्नु हो ।

दिनप्रतिदिन बढ्दै गइरहेको अव्यवस्थि शहरीकरण र त्यसको लागि आबश्यक ढुंगा, गिट्टी र बालुवा उल्लेखित मापदण्डको पालना नगरी सेती नदिबाट हुने गरेको उत्खनन तथा संकलन, र नदि किनारमा स्थापना गरिएका अव्यवस्थित क्रषर उद्योगहरुबाट उत्सर्जन भएको राशायनियक तथा किटनाशक पदार्थलाई प्रसोधन नगरी सिधै नदीमा निस्काशन गर्ने प्रचलनका कारण नदि फोहोर तथा धमिलो बनेको हो । नदिजन्य पदार्थ एबं क्रषर उद्योगको उचित व्यवस्थापनको अभाबमा जिबिकोपार्जनका लागि सेती नदीका माछामा निर्भर स्थानीय समुदायहरू—जस्तै कुमाल, बोटे आदि तथा धार्मिक आस्थाका कारण सेतीनदीमा नुहाउने धर्मावलम्बीहरू छालाजन्य रोगको सिकार हुनुपरेको अवस्था छ ।

यी सामाजिक, आर्थिक, धार्मिक तथा वातावरणीय असरलाई न्यूनीकरण गर्ने तथा सकारात्मक प्रभावलाई बढावा दिने उदेश्यले गरिने वातावरणीय अध्ययन तथा वातावरणीय व्यवस्थापन योजना तर्जुमा तथा कार्यान्वयन निस्प्रभाबी हुनु नदि प्रदुषणको अर्को कारण हो । स्थानीय सरकारको कमजोर नियमन, योजना तर्जुमा प्रक्रियामा नदि प्रभावित समुदायको सहभागिता नगरिनुका साथै नदि सफाई केन्द्रित बजेट तथा कार्यक्रमको कार्यान्वयन नहुँदा यो समस्या सिर्जना भएको हो ।

यसरी क्रसर तथा ढुंगा गिट्टी वालुवाको बैज्ञानिक व्यवस्थापन नहुँदा यसबाट प्रत्यक्ष वा परोक्षरुपमा जलचर एबं नदि वरपरका समुदायहरू माछामा आधारित जीविकोपार्जन तथा स्वच्छ पानीमा नुहाउने तथा पिउने अधिकारबाट बन्चित हुनुपरेको छ एकातर्फ भने, अर्कोतर्फ़ सोहि ठाउँमा केहि सिमित टाठाबाठाहरु नदिजन्य पदार्थको उपयोगकै काराण रातारात धनि हुने गरेका छन् । वातावरणीय न्यायको सिद्धान्तको कसीमा राखेर हेर्दा नदि जन्य पदार्थको व्यवस्थापन न्यासंगत छैन, यसबाट धनि झन् धनि हुने र गरिब थप गरिब हुने वातावरण श्रीजना हुन्छ । नगरपालिको बार्षिक नीति तथा कार्यक्रमहरु सामाजिक समाबेसिताको आधारमा नबनाईनुका कारण बातावरणबाट प्राप्त हुने सेवाको वितरण न्योचित नभएको हो।

तसर्थ नदि प्रदुषणको दिगो समाधानको लागि प्रभावित समुदायहरूको पहिचान गर्नु, उनीहरूलाई निर्णय प्रक्रियामा सक्रिय रूपमा सहभागी गराउनु, वातावरणीय व्यवस्थापनको प्रभावकारी कार्यान्वयन गर्नु, अनुगमन र विकासका लाभ तथा हानि समतामुलक शासनको सिद्धान्तलाई अबलम्बन गर्दै बाँडफाँड गर्नु नगरपालिकाको दायित्व हो । वर्तमान स्थानीय शासन संरचना वातावरणीय क्षति र विकासका लाभहरूको न्यायोचित वितरणमा संबेदनशील हुनु नितान्त आबश्यक छ । नदि केन्द्रित बिकासलाई प्राथमिकतामा राखी नीति निर्माण तथा योजना तर्जुमा गरि कार्यान्वयन गरेको खण्डमा नदि सफा हुनुका साथै वातावरणीय न्यायका हकवालाहरु लाभान्वित हुने छन् । अत: वातावरणीय न्यायको महत्वलाई प्रभावित समुदाय सम्म पुर्याउने र उनीहरुलाई सशक्तिकरणगर्दै उनीहरुको समेत सहभागितामा नगरपालिकाको नीति तथा योजना बनेको खण्डमा सेती नदि सफा हुन्छ र नगरपालिकाको शासन व्यवस्था पनि समाबेसी भएको प्रमाणित हुन्छ । नयाँ बर्ष २०८३ ले संबन्धित सबैलाई यसतर्फ संबेदनशील हुन प्रेरित गरोस, सुभ-कामना ।।

Nature Based Solution - Effective for Revitalizing Water Sources

The water sources in Huksikot Rural Municipality, located within the Gindri watershed area of Nepal, which had been at risk due to unplanned road construction and climate change, have now been gradually conserved and restored. These water sources have been revitalized through Nature-based Solutions (NbS), such as planting bamboo and bamboo grasses in the upper catchment areas, fencing around the water sources to control grazing, and protecting them from environmentally unfriendly road expansion.

This demonstrates that adopting nature-based solutions can support livelihoods, conserve biodiversity, and enhance climate resilience. Therefore, it appears beneficial for Nepal to adopt policies that promote nature-based solutions for the well-being of both people and nature.

It is noted that this was a joint initiative of the Government of Nepal, local governments, local communities, SAHAMATI (a local NGO), and WWF Nepal.