Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is felt, visible and personal in many ways. From unpredictable rainfall patterns leading to flash floods destroying lives and livelihoods, to infrastructure damage and unbearable heat, climate change is reshaping our lives in ways that make it difficult to ignore.

Nepal’s September 2024 flash flood on the Roshi river left a lasting impact. The Government of Nepal reported at least 224 deaths, 158 injuries, 28 missing persons. Around 13,300 people required rescue, while at least 1,200 houses were destroyed or damaged. These victims lost not only life and property this time around, but small changes in rain patterns now trigger anxiety, fear, and sleepless nights.. 

Many efforts are being made to combat climate change, and these have led to  a plethora of promised actions and pledges. Yet at the community level, results remain unclear. Between 2013 and  2017, for example, Nepal received commitments of $1.92 billion in climate finance for 609 climate-related projects. $643 million of that amount was for 2017 alone. 70% of the total funding came from major multilateral banks, including the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and European Investment Bank. But the question remains: how has this translated to impact on a community level?

Over the last month, we have had conversations with climate activists and youth leaders about precisely these issues from all over Nepal. This is what they said:

Beware the awareness gap

When we first began speaking with affected communities about the climate emergency, it was clear that people are living with the impacts of climatechange, but do not understand what causes extreme weather. While many we spoke to cited unbalanced development or feeling helpless in the face of the cruelty of nature, they were unable to explain the shifts in terms of larger systemic weather changes. The community had seen the devastating evidence of flash floods, fields washed away, dried-up water resources, changes in harvest cycles and more, but most were unfamiliar with climate change terminology and understanding around it was sparse.

This has resulted in climate change not ever becoming a clear priority for the community. For example, when people are displaced by disasters such as landslides and floods – which are increasing in frequency and intensity because of climate change – the immediate concern is around rehabilitation, shelter, and securing livelihoods. And while these concerns are genuine, failing to connect them with larger climate dynamics allows deeper vulnerabilities to go unchecked – such as the larger lack of climate-resilient infrastructure and unsustainable land use. Action remains limited to short-term fixes not long-term solutions. 

Complex climate funding

Climate finance donors are numerous, and range from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to the Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund, to Carbon Trading, to funds from multilateral donor agencies like the World Bank. However, these funds are massively insufficient to address the climate emergency. Nepal’s government estimates that the country will need  USD 25 billion for mitigation and USD 21 billion for adaptation efforts for climate action between 2021 and 2030 (USD 196.1 billion for mitigation and USD 47.4 billion for adaptation between 2021-2050), the funding for which is primarily anticipated from international sources. Based on research by Oxford Policy Management, even if Nepal secures its funding from the pledged bi/multi lateral and international financial institutions, and continues its current trend of domestic climate financing, there will still be a gap of USD 26 billion by 2030. These funds are also difficult to access. The L&D fund, for example, has complex frameworks, operational barriers, and requires significant data and evidence for claims.

Moreover, climate issues are included as a tokenistic part of development projects in order to ensure straight-forward approval.One of the climate activists we spoke to shared their encounter with a development partner in reference to an irrigation project:

“The government does not actually prioritize the remote areas but we do. Honestly, this is a developmental project but using the word ‘climate’ or integrating the climate element helps build concessional financing and secure loans.”

Critics also argue that relying on loans from development partners exacerbates injustice. Nepal emits only 0.027% of global greenhouse gases yet suffers severe climate impacts due to its fragile topography and dependence on climate-sensitive agriculture. This injustice increases debt risks for nations like Nepal, which deserve compensation or at least accessible, effective concessional finance.

Community Consultation: More a Checklist Than a Practice

A major concern is government and development partners’ lack of meaningful consultation with local organizations and communities. Policies and programs are designed top to bottom, making stakeholder consultation meetings little more than symbolic. Talking to communities we heard the following reflection (repeated often in similar words): 

“I believe that the base for the policy has to be a bottom-up approach but based on what I observe, it’s the opposite. The community is still missing in the policy process. Usually, external consultants who are hired to formulate the policy conduct the consultation at the capital. The formed policy/program is then disseminated to the lower levels where they have to adjust programs based on the framework provided.”

Real consultation requires reaching out to communities and involving them in designing solutions built around their lived knowledge. Otherwise climate programs become externally imposed interventions rather than community-driven efforts – wasting resources; leaving issues unresolved as a result; and undermining the sustainability of these issues in the long-run.

Commitment and the constraints of the local government

Local and provincial governments are key implementers of climate action and budgets in Nepal. The National Climate Change Policy, 2019 committed to spending 80% of climate funds at a local level.

While in some local governments (LGs) there is a visible commitment to climate action, these are limited to sanitation efforts and basic awareness programs. Most units are operating with limited capacity, resources, and are barely aware of the national goals and how to achieve them. This means that climate-related actions can often be tacked on to other projects. In the case of the activists we spoke to, it is not a surprise when climate budgets are part of infrastructure development or have remained unused. As we heard from one young activist:

“The climate funds towards the end of the fiscal year are used in paving the road with the explanation that it got damaged by ‘climate-induced’ disasters instead of being spent on mitigation and adaptation efforts.”

Engagement of the youth in climate action efforts

Young people in Nepal are engaging around these issues at all levels. The Nepal Youth for Climate Action (NYCA) has reach and access to young people across the country, for example. It enables regular interaction through conferences such as the National Youth Conference on Climate Change through which the participants produce youth-driven recommendations.

Smaller-scale initiatives, like Biruwa, work at a local level to share climate knowledge and support action by conducting community-based climate research and awareness.

Youth activists and representatives from youth networks participating and engaging in policy consultations and climate discussions is a positive sign of a growing recognition of young people’s role in society. However, it is important to reflect on the quality of such engagement. Youth participation should go beyond just presence – young people should be equipped and supported to contribute effectively. Strengthening their capacity and creating space for diverse youth voices will make their participation truly representative. We are working with platforms and partners including the European Partnership for Democracy Youth Cohort to make sure this is the case. 

The climate emergency is real in Nepal and is part of the lived reality for many, but despite some important efforts to drive change, climate finance and decision-making is not citizen centric. 

We are missing substantial awareness, accessibility, and local ownership. Building climate resilient systems will require reimagining communities as the key contributors and active agents in shaping the solution rather than just as beneficiaries.

We must invest in local capacity, honor lived knowledge, and create inclusive spaces where youth, local governments, and grassroots voices are heard and empowered. Only then can we move from promises to real progress where climate action is just and rooted in the realities of those most affected. The next in this series of blogs will look more closely at how the World Bank can support this process.

Prekkshya Bimali and Narayan Adhikari, Accountability Lab Nepal