The damage suffered by mountainous countries due to climate-related disasters is rising every year. However, climate change impacts felt by the least developed mountainous countries have not been able to move forward as a common issue.
Nepal is setting up a global dialogue platform named the “Sagarmatha Sambaad,” and the first episode is focused on the theme of “Climate Change, Mountains and Future of Humanity” to discuss the problems faced by mountainous countries due to climate change.
This initiative also aims to address, among others, climatic issues in the mountains, and the impact it may have on coastal countries. This is the summary of a conversation with climate change expert Raju Pandit Chhetri on “Sagarmatha Sambaad” and the position of climate finance. The interview was taken by Mukesh Pokhrel.
After the new president came to power in the US, the assistance provided to various countries through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has stopped, and the US itself has already announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. What impact will this have on Nepal’s climate sector?
The US withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change during the first term of the current president. It also stopped financial assistance at that time, but this “action” was not taken as aggressively as it is now.
At that time, the world’s geopolitics and the political system was a little different. There were no aggressive wars in the world. The situation in Ukraine and the Middle East was not like it is now.
A lot of money is going to the war. The policies taken by the US also affected others. It seems that not only climate change, but also development and trade, which were dependent on US assistance, will be seriously affected.
The US has invested about ninety million dollars in various projects currently underway in Nepal. It seems that the biggest damage will be done to health and education if this assistance is permanently halted.
The US was giving money to various international Funds too, such as the Climate Investment Fund, and Green Climate Fund under the Paris Agreement, among others. We have been benefiting from these global multilateral funds but will now be affected when assistance stops there.
After the US withdrew its hand, other countries are now mulling about international development assistance. This is very unfortunate. It is the obligation of the US to lead on climate action and help other poorer and climate vulnerable countries.
How should Nepal work in the climate sector in the face of halted international cooperation?
First, we need to adopt cost efficiency within the country, reducing waste and resource leakage. The available funds should be invested wisely in economic and social activities, prioritizing import substitution.
Increasing investment in green energy is crucial. We can cut down on imports of fossil fuel such as diesel and petrol.
Although Nepal has 46% forest coverage, we have yet to fully utilize its benefits. Forest-based enterprises should be encouraged while ensuring forest conservation. We must explore ways to gain social and economic benefits from our forests.
Similarly, efficient investment and prioritization of increasing agricultural produce would be urgent.
Nepal needs foreign aid for a few more decades, but we must make the most of what we receive. Instead of relying solely on Western countries, we should strengthen partnerships with emerging economies in the Global South.
Hence, in the coming days, South-South cooperation will be crucial and need to expand the horizon of development support.
What do you see as risks to Nepal’s green energy?
Our hydropower projects face significant risks from floods and landslides in the Himalayas. Both large and small hydropower projects have suffered damage, and new ones struggle to get built due to these challenges.
The insurance cushion for these projects is also becoming difficult or expensive. That is why Nepal should transition to a mixed energy approach. Alongside hydropower, we need to invest in solar and other renewable alternatives.
We should track down new opportunities through policy support and incentives for household and institutional self-sufficiency in energy through green energy promotion.
Aren’t there challenges in transitioning to mixed energy?
In the short run, there could be some challenges, but I see a lot of opportunities in the long run. If we rely on only one energy source, we will lack options to manage any crisis.
Nepal has ample sunshine, which can be harnessed for solar energy. Additionally, other waste-based projects should be explored as alternative solutions. Just relying on imported fossil fuel is risky and we have faced this in the 2015 blockade.
So, we need to diversify our energy sources, rely less on imported energy, and promote green transition.
You mentioned that Nepal’s infrastructure is at risk due to climate-related disasters. How much attention has the country paid to climate-friendly infrastructure?
Not enough. The urgency to assess climate-related risks has only recently emerged. While Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) were conducted earlier, they were not strong or dependable. These assessments did not even consider climate risks and vulnerability.
Insurance companies are increasingly becoming hesitant to cover certain projects, indicating the scale of risk. Many of our existing roads and hydropower projects are not climate friendly.
The damage from floods at the Upper Tamakoshi and Bhotekoshi Hydropower plants, as well as the Melamchi drinking water project, are clear examples.
Have we failed to build climate-friendly infrastructure? Should we seek foreign aid for this purpose?
Making infrastructure climate-friendly does increase costs to some extent. However, it can be done cost-effectively if planned properly and on time.
Unfortunately, climate risk assessments, including EIAs, are not conducted rigorously. Projects often avoid proper planning because of cost concerns, but this short-term thinking leads to greater long-term damage.
Public awareness is low. Whether the projects are funded nationally or through international resources, all projects must be made climate-friendly though adequate risk assessment.
Are we now beginning to prioritize climate-friendly infrastructure?
Recent disasters have finally pushed Nepal toward considering climate-friendly construction. Several incidents in the past few years have been wake-up calls, proving that neglecting climate resilience leads to greater socio-economic and direct financial losses.
The realization is setting in that investing in climate-friendly infrastructure is not a cost – it is urgent, and absolutely a necessity.
Nepal has been organizing various conferences to lead the Himalayan issue, including the Sagarmatha Sambaad this year. Is Nepal ready to take the lead?
Such programs have certainly helped raise public awareness both nationally and internationally.
Last year, when Nepal organised the International Mountain Conference, it gave a clear message to the world that Nepal is serious about the impacts of climate change in the Himalayas, and it needs attention.
We are also asserting that Nepal has the legitimate right to lead on the issue. However, most of these discussions remain confined to Kathmandu and are conducted within limited circles.
The private sector has not taken enough ownership, nor has it conducted adequate assessments to drive meaningful action on climate change. While critical issues are discussed in meetings, there is often confusion about how to implement them.
A significant gap exists between the private sector, the government, and other organizations working in this field, and it is crucial and high time to bridge this divide.
Where is the gap?
The various events organized by Nepal have sent a positive message. We do have the moral right to claim leadership on mountain issues and raise awareness about how Himalayan impacts extend to coastal problems.
This is the reason the Sagarmatha Sambaad is focused on linking highlands to lowlands.
However, our efforts remain weak in global forums and climate discussions. The concerns of low-lying island nations dominate these discussions, whereas Himalayan countries have failed to present a united front.
One challenge is the lack of a clear definition of the mountain issue. Also, South Asian countries do not share a common agenda, making it difficult to advocate collectively. For instance, when Nepal raises Himalayan concerns, India or Pakistan does not actively support them – despite having a sizable portion of the Himalayas within its borders.
Organizing the Sagarmatha Sambaad with a focus on the mountains is a positive step, but we must also refine our working approach.
The Sagarmatha Sambaad should not become mired in partisan politics, it must remain an apolitical national agenda for Nepal. Nepal has the vision to conduct this multilateral forum biennially and the country must give continuity.
Strengthening alliances with countries that share our interests will help us push this issue forward effectively. Right now, we are still in the preliminary stages of this process, and we must gradually build the international confidence on Nepal.
