Localizing Climate Action for a Resilient Nepal: Strategies for Resilience, Adaptation & Sustainable Development

Explore how Nepal is localizing climate action to build resilience against floods, landslides, and rising temperatures. Learn how policies like NCCP, NDC, and LAPA empower local governments, integrate indigenous knowledge, and drive sustainable development. Includes case studies, challenges, and financing insights.

Bridging the Gap: Localizing Climate Action for a Resilient Nepal

Nepal, a nation cradled by the majestic Himalayas, faces a paradox: it contributes minimally to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but stands as one of the world's most vulnerable countries to the severe repercussions of climate change. This escalating vulnerability is attributed to its fragile and rugged topography, coupled with climate-sensitive livelihoods and limited adaptive capacities. The increasing frequency and intensity of climate-induced disasters, such as floods, landslides, and glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), wreak havoc on lives and livelihoods, consistently undermining national development efforts. Recognizing this urgent reality, Nepal has developed a suite of ambitious policies and plans, notably the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) 2019 and its Second Nationally Determined Contribution (2nd NDC) 2020, alongside earlier initiatives like the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 2010 and Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPA). However, the effectiveness of these national commitments hinges critically on their successful implementation at the local level – a process known as the localization of climate actions.

This article delves into the complexities, challenges, and opportunities of localizing climate action in Nepal. It examines how national policies translate into on-the-ground resilience-building, exploring the pivotal role of local governments, the integration of indigenous knowledge, the imperative of inclusive approaches, and the critical need for decentralized climate finance. By understanding these dynamics, we can better appreciate the path forward for Nepal in fostering a truly climate-resilient society.

Nepal's Climate Vulnerability: The Urgent Backdrop

The climate crisis in Nepal is not a distant threat but an unfolding reality. The country has experienced an average annual temperature increase of 0.056 degrees Celsius, with higher altitudes in the Himalayan regions showing the most significant warming. This warming trend is projected to continue, with annual mean temperatures rising by 1.7–3.6°C by 2100, and average annual precipitation expected to increase by 11–23%. Such shifts exacerbate existing climate variabilities and lead to more extreme weather events.

The visible impacts are widespread:

• Water Resources: Drying springs, lowering groundwater levels, and erratic rainfall patterns are common. This directly threatens water quality and adequacy for human activities.
• Agriculture: Farmers, particularly smallholders who constitute two-thirds of the population and produce up to 70% of the nation's food, face increased pests and diseases, and decreased agricultural production.
• Forestry: Increased forest fires, loss of medicinal plants, and invasive species infestations are reported.
• Disasters: The rise of climate-induced disasters, including landslides, floods, and GLOFs, is frequently noted. These incidents have a substantial human and economic toll, with an estimated annual economic loss of over NPR 2,778 million (USD 23.3 million) and significant displacement of communities. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake alone caused losses equivalent to about one-third of Nepal’s GDP.

Nepal's socio-economic context amplifies these hazards. As a landlocked, low-income country with a large share of its population living in rural mountainous areas, often in isolated villages with limited access to services, its vulnerability is high. Rapid urbanization without resilient infrastructure further exposes cities like Kathmandu to floods and earthquakes. The UN Secretary-General has explicitly highlighted Nepal as a frontline of climate-induced disasters.

Policy Landscape for Climate Action Localization

In response to its acute vulnerability and global commitments, Nepal has systematically built a national climate policy framework. The country was an early adopter of climate change planning, introducing its National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) in 2010 to integrate adaptation into policies and development plans. Following NAPA, the National Framework on Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) 2011 was approved, aiming to deliver adaptation services to the most climate-vulnerable areas and people. This framework provided practical guidance for LAPA preparation and implementation, emphasizing the critical role of local bodies. A revised LAPA framework 2019 was later enacted to align with Nepal's federal administrative structure.

The NCCP 2019 and the 2nd NDC 2020 represent the country's current overarching policy instruments to enhance climate actions and achieve net-zero emissions by 2045, outlining pathways for adaptation and mitigation across various sectors. The NCCP prioritizes eight thematic areas—agriculture and food security; forest, biodiversity and watershed conservation; water resources and energy; rural and urban habitats; industry, transport and physical infrastructure; tourism and natural and cultural heritage; health, drinking water and sanitation; and disaster risk reduction and management—along with four inter-thematic areas like gender equality and social inclusion (GESI), awareness, capacity building, research, technology, and climate finance management. The 2nd NDC sets mitigation targets for energy, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, and waste, also incorporating GESI as a cross-cutting theme.

A significant development in Nepal's climate governance is its pioneering climate budget tagging (CBT) system, introduced in 2012. This fiscal policy tool systematically labels public expenditures relevant to climate change, enabling better integration of climate objectives into budget planning. Since its inception, climate funding has substantially increased, rising to 35% of the total budget in FY 2023/24, with significant allocations to sub-national governments.

The 2015 Constitution of Nepal further bolstered the localization agenda by reorganizing the state into federal, provincial, and local governments, mandating decentralized disaster governance and devolving more rights and authorities to local levels. The 2017 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (DRRM Act) and its 2019 Regulations define disaster management roles across all tiers, shifting from a response-centric to a proactive risk reduction approach. This emphasizes preparedness, mitigation, and "build back better" reconstruction, with local governments playing a crucial role in implementing climate change policies and achieving national targets.

The LAPA Initiative: A Case Study in Localization

The Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPA) initiative stands as a promising example of integrating bottom-up and top-down approaches in climate adaptation within Nepal. Developed to operationalize the NAPA priorities at the grassroots level, LAPAs are designed to increase the resilience of local communities through context-specific local actions, fostering adaptation plans, and integrating them with local development goals.

LAPAs are inherently linked to the idea of "everyday adaptation," recognizing that climate impacts intensify mundane, location-specific stressors. They incorporate tacit knowledge derived from iterative learning-by-doing processes, allowing local stakeholders to lead in both policy formation and implementation. Communities have a long history of adapting to changes, drawing on considerable resourcefulness and local knowledge systems. For example, farmers' managed irrigation systems, community forestry, and local cooperatives are cited as successful local responses to emerging challenges.

The preparation of LAPAs involves extensive consultation with local communities and stakeholders. Survey results indicate that 82% of respondents were moderately aware of climate change impacts, and 73% reported their community was severely affected. A significant 98% believed LAPA was highly important for adaptation, and 80% felt their engagement in LAPA preparation made a difference. These findings underscore a strong local enthusiasm for the LAPA initiative.

Common adaptation activities proposed in LAPA documents reflect diverse needs:

• Agriculture: Training in animal husbandry and farming, irrigation efficiency, seed improvement, and high-value crop cultivation.
• Water and Energy: Improved cooking stoves, conservation of water sources, maintenance of drinking water systems, and water harvesting ponds.
• Forestry: Tree plantation, fire-line construction, and awareness regarding forest conservation.
• Disaster Management: Approaches for raising awareness, building embankments, and establishing early-warning systems.

Local government agencies, particularly Wards and Municipalities/Rural Municipalities, along with programs like Hariyo Ban, are recognized as major institutions supporting adaptation initiatives. Despite satisfaction with LAPA preparation, stakeholders reported challenges in implementing proposed activities, with 58% finding it difficult to integrate them into government planning processes. However, the current institutional framework also fosters vertical integration, and the Ministry of Forest and Environment (MOFE) now coordinates climate adaptation policy objectives at central and local levels.

Challenges in Localizing Climate Actions

Despite Nepal's progressive policy framework and the promising LAPA initiative, significant barriers hinder the effective localization of climate actions:

1. Top-Down Policy Development and Gaps in Communication:
• National Policies without Local Input: NCCP and 2nd NDC, though overarching, were largely developed using a top-down approach, with consultations mainly concentrated at the federal level, often failing to adequately accommodate local governments and their specific issues. This lack of engagement makes implementation difficult at the local level as policies may not reflect local contexts.
• Ambiguity in Policy Provisions: Many policies, though seemingly gender-specific or inclusive, contain ambiguities (e.g., "special priority to women") that leave much to interpretation and lack clear rules for ensuring participation.
• Policy-Practice Discrepancy: Important issues raised in policies often do not effectively translate into subsequent acts and regulations, rendering the policies ineffective for on-the-ground action.
• Lack of Awareness: Local government officials and the public often lack awareness and a clear understanding of national climate policies like NCCP, 2nd NDC, and LAPA.
2. Financial Constraints and Centralized Flow:
• Insufficient Local Funding: Despite the NCCP's claim that 80% of climate finance should be disbursed at the local level, the reality is that only a small amount reaches the local communities. This centralized "funnel type" finance flow contrasts sharply with the "pyramid structure" of immense needs at the local level.
• Undervaluation of Natural Assets: Nepal's rich forest cover and vital ecosystem services are undervalued in national and international climate finance frameworks.
• Weak Budget Utilization: Federal climate expenditure shows weak performance in budget utilization, with climate change having the lowest utilization among SDG categories in FY 2024/25.
• Opportunity Cost: Local communities bear a significant, often unquantified, economic and social cost for their collective actions in climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, estimated at around 330 USD per household annually (30% of per capita income).
3. Institutional and Human Resource Capacity Gaps:
• Low Institutional Capacity: The overall capacity of the Nepal government to meet its well-intentioned policies is low, with disaster management often less prioritized than other responsibilities for local government officials.
• Lack of Skilled Human Resources: Local governments severely lack capable, trained, and technical human resources in climate change adaptation and mitigation. This impedes the integration of policies and implementation of complex projects.
• Unclear Roles Post-Federalization: The federal restructuring, while decentralizing power, has created complexities regarding shared jurisdictions and unclear divisions of roles and responsibilities between federal, provincial, and local bodies. This can lead to low institutional ownership, duplication of efforts, and resource squandering.
• Political Interference and Prioritization: Political interests often overshadow vulnerable communities' needs. Local elected leaders may prioritize general infrastructure development activities pledged during elections over climate actions, leading to limited buy-in for NCCP and 2nd NDC localization.
4. Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) Gaps:
• Symbolic vs. Meaningful Participation: While participation of women and marginalized groups in LAPA preparation was reported as strong (91% of respondents agreed), male respondents showed significantly more confidence in this than women. In practice, their involvement is often largely symbolic, with decisions influenced by male leaders even in women-only groups.
• Disproportionate Vulnerability: Women and children are disproportionately affected by climate impacts, exacerbated by male migration. Women, primarily engaged in agriculture, often lack land ownership and decision-making authority despite bearing a greater workload.
• Lack of Disaggregated Data: There is a critical need for gender-disaggregated data in all climate-related sectors to inform truly gender-aware policies.
• Budgeting for GESI: Although the Ministry of Forests and Environment allocates 7% of its annual budget for GESI at the national level, separate budgeting for GESI at provincial and local levels is often lacking, and details are unknown.
5. Integration and Coordination Deficiencies:
• Fragmented Approach: The approach to mainstreaming adaptation at the local level is often institutionally fragmented and politically naive.
• Too Many Plans: The existence of multiple climate-related plans (LAPA, Local Resilient Development Plan, Community Resilient Plan, Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan) creates confusion for local governments in prioritization and financing.
• Project-Based Focus: Many LAPAs have been externally funded and project-based, lacking sustained engagement at the local level for implementation, updates, and follow-ups, which raises sustainability concerns.
6. 6. Under-recognition of Local and Indigenous Knowledge:
7. ◦ A significant proportion of stakeholders (71%) identified less recognition of local knowledge as a barrier to LAPA implementation. There's a power difference where science-based knowledge is often valued over Indigenous and local knowledge, making it difficult to incorporate valuable traditional practices into adaptation strategies.
8. 7. Limited Private Sector Engagement:
9. ◦ The private sector's involvement in climate finance is limited due to low awareness and a lack of "bankability outlook" among banks and industries.

These challenges underscore that while Nepal has established foundational policies, the journey towards truly localized, effective, and inclusive climate action requires concerted effort to overcome systemic barriers.

Good Practices and Prospects for the Way Forward

Despite the formidable challenges, Nepal's experience in climate action also presents valuable good practices and opportunities that can illuminate the path forward:

1. Strengthening Community-Based Disaster Management (CBDM/CBDRR):

◦ Nepal has a long history of successful community-based disaster management (CBDM), particularly in rural areas where it serves as a popular approach for collective action against natural hazards.

◦ These initiatives are proactive, focusing on pre-disaster activities like planning disaster calendars, early warning systems (EWS), and preparedness, not just post-disaster rescue and rehabilitation.

◦ CBDM has been found to effectively reduce humanitarian and economic costs, with collective action significantly minimizing the socio-economic impact of disasters. For example, communities spend about 78 days per household annually on CBDM activities, valued at approximately $330 USD per annum in opportunity cost, but this is a fraction of the total economic loss averted.

◦ High household involvement (99% active participation) and ownership are key to its success, driven by awareness and intuition about potential climate threats.

◦ Indigenous knowledge and local practices are integral to CBDM, offering cost-effective solutions for disaster risk reduction and early warning. Examples include "uchoghar" (raised houses), instant bag preparation for embankments, plantation for landslide/drought reduction, and traditional weather forecasting.

2. Advancing Early Warning Systems (EWS):

◦ Nepal is committed to achieving the targets of the UN's Early Warnings for All (EW4ALL) initiative and is upgrading its multi-hazard EWS.

◦ Successful EWS examples exist, such as in the Karnali River basin, which has demonstrated effectiveness in saving lives and assets.

◦ The government is developing multimodal hazard alerts (SMS, radio, loudspeakers, social media) and operates a 24/7 emergency operations center (EOC) during monsoon, coordinating with telecom operators for timely alerts.

3. Harnessing Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA):

◦ EbA is recognized as an ecologically sensitive, cost-effective, and locally adaptive climate adaptation strategy.

◦ Nepali policies increasingly acknowledge the importance of conserving, enhancing, and managing ecosystems for climate change adaptation.

◦ Key EbA measures being integrated include conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, rainwater harvesting, integrated watershed management, and protection of water bodies and forests. While often focused on rural areas, there's a growing need and potential for urban EbA, such as promoting urban forests and green spaces.

◦ Nepal's commitment to international agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement underscores its recognition of ecosystems' pivotal role in climate action.

4. Promoting Climate-Resilient Agriculture (CRA):

◦ Initiatives like the Green Resilient Agriculture Productive Ecosystems (GRAPE) project emphasize a bottom-up approach, empowering smallholder farmers through on-farm experiments and action research.

◦ Over 40 climate-resilient agricultural technologies have been tested, addressing soil degradation, pests, and diseases.

◦ There is a focus on gender equality and equitable resource access, including gender-friendly tools and women's participation in digital agro-advisory services.

◦ The NCCP and 2nd NDC explicitly promote climate-friendly agriculture systems, including drought/water-logged resistant crops, water-efficient irrigation, and climate-smart villages/farms.

5. Empowering Local Governments and Institutional Reform:

◦ The new constitution and administrative restructuring have provided more authority and financial resources at the local level, making local governments pivotal actors.

◦ The Ministry of Forest and Environment (MOFE) is initiating efforts to promote an integrated approach to adaptation planning, fostering vertical integration.

◦ Calls for strengthening institutional capacity of local units, recruiting qualified human resources, and enhancing technical expertise are paramount for effective climate governance.

◦ Local governments can be supported to develop guidelines and action plans tailored to their specific needs and contexts for implementing existing policies.

6. Exploring Innovative Financing Mechanisms:

◦ There is a need to explore domestic resources and innovative sources like community forests and other natural resources to finance climate actions.

◦ Nepal is piloting disaster risk financing, including exploring a national catastrophe insurance program for farmers and micro-insurance products through local cooperatives, with premium subsidies.

◦ The concept of a Green Finance Taxonomy is being highlighted to stimulate private investment.

◦ Discussions are ongoing to integrate climate finance discussions into national legislative processes and attract support from global resilience funds and facilities.

7. Deepening Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI):

◦ Nepal has developed and endorsed a Strategic Action Plan for Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion in DRRM (May 2024), recognized as a regional good practice. This plan aims to embed GEDSI in Nepal’s DRRM system, from inclusive risk assessments to disaster-responsive governance.

◦ Efforts are being made to develop specific programs with dedicated resources to ensure full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and other marginalized groups in climate change policy development at all levels of government.

◦ The NCCP and 2nd NDC explicitly call for addressing the concerns of vulnerable groups in climate policies and actions, emphasizing access to information and technologies for all.

◦ Women are already leading effective DRR solutions at the community level, highlighting the potential for further strengthening their leadership.

8. Adopting a Four-Pillar Framework for Localization:

• A comprehensive framework is proposed for effective localization of NCCP and 2nd NDC, encompassing:
• Policies and Institutions: Ensuring coherence in local-level policies with national targets and establishing dedicated institutional setups.
• Communication and Strategic Partnership: Fostering two-way learning, communication of policy targets, and collaboration among governmental and non-governmental actors.
• Resources and Implementation: Ensuring access to adequate financial and human resources, capacity building, and detailed implementation plans.
• Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting (MER): Setting clear indicators, tracking progress, providing feedback, and documenting achievements to ensure accountability and learning.

These interconnected efforts, from grassroots innovations to strategic policy reforms, are essential for building a truly resilient and inclusive Nepal in the face of climate change.

Conclusion

Nepal's journey towards climate resilience is a microcosm of the global challenge: a race against time, exacerbated by unique geographical and socio-economic vulnerabilities. While national commitments and policy frameworks like the NCCP 2019, 2nd NDC 2020, and LAPA demonstrate a strong political will, their success fundamentally hinges on effective localization. This means transforming high-level aspirations into tangible actions that resonate with the everyday realities of communities and individuals across the diverse landscape of Nepal.

The experiences with initiatives like LAPA and community-based disaster management highlight the immense capacity and willingness of local populations to adapt, especially when supported by tailored policies and sufficient resources. The integration of indigenous knowledge, the empowerment of women and marginalized groups through genuine participation, and a reformed, decentralized climate finance mechanism are not merely desirable but absolutely imperative for equitable and effective climate action.

However, persistent challenges such as the top-down nature of policy formulation, inadequate financial flows to the local level, significant institutional and human resource capacity gaps, and the symbolic rather than substantive inclusion of vulnerable groups continue to impede progress. Overcoming these barriers requires a multi-faceted and sustained approach, involving stronger inter-governmental coordination, targeted capacity building, innovative domestic funding, and a commitment to data-driven, bottom-up policy development.

For organizations like Green Smith Nepal, the path forward involves actively advocating for and facilitating:

• Policy coherence and co-creation that genuinely incorporates local needs and traditional knowledge.
• Decentralization of climate finance to ensure resources reach the most vulnerable communities directly.
• Strengthening of local institutional capacities through sustained training and technical support.
• Empowering true GESI by fostering meaningful participation and addressing systemic inequalities in all climate interventions.
• Promoting successful local practices like community-based DRRM and climate-smart agriculture as replicable models.

By championing these critical aspects, Green Smith Nepal and similar organizations can play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between national climate aspirations and the resilient realities of communities on the ground, ensuring a safer and more sustainable future for all in Nepal.