Climate Justice For Indigenous People

As the 29th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP29) came to a close in Azerbaijan, the climate crisis has reached a point where decisive action is no longer optional but imperative. Yet, despite global discussions, the most vulnerable — indigenous and local communities — remain on the sidelines. These communities bear the brunt of climate change but often lack the voice and resources to defend their rights, livelihoods, and traditions. In Nepal, a nation whose indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation, the importance of this year's COP29 cannot be overstated.

This year’s COP saw a significant number of Nepali delegates, including government officials and various ‘woke’ civil society representatives and NGOs, but the event must move beyond ceremonial gestures. As Noam Chomsky put it, “The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know.” This reflects the dire situation of many Indigenous communities, who remain unaware of their very rights or the legal frameworks ‘for’ them. This gap in knowledge perpetuates their marginalisation, preventing them from fully participating in the decisions that shape their futures.

Landmark agreements

The COP has long been the leading platform for tackling climate change, producing landmark agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. These gatherings set emission reduction and adaptation targets and offer vulnerable nations a stage to demand accountability from industrialised countries. However, despite these key agreements, the COP faces criticism for slow progress in addressing the urgent needs of those most affected. The COP's climate adaptation pledges often fall short for frontline communities like Nepal’s indigenous peoples, with funds being insufficient or tied to inequitable conditionalities. It is imperative for a rethinking of climate finance at COP29 and after that, climate finance cannot afford to remain myopically focused on conventional adaptation measures in Nepal and alike nations. It must expand its scope to encompass all dimensions of its impacts. It should focus on following three critical areas.

The Santiago Network under the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage has called for addressing the loss and damage caused by climate change, yet this network’s urgency must be amplified through mandatory climate finance liability mechanisms. These mechanisms should prioritise systematic investment in resilience strategies, particularly for communities facing the escalating health crises exacerbated by climate change. For Nepal’s indigenous populations, climate change is not only a land and livelihood issue but a public health disaster, marked by rising vector-borne diseases, respiratory illnesses, and mental health strain — issues intensified by the country’s inadequate healthcare infrastructure, according to study of  Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal. These are not isolated issues — they’re climate impacts as destructive as any physical disaster, yet they rarely receive the direct funding they deserve.

How many more lives must be impacted, and how much suffering must continue before climate finance targets health resilience in meaningful ways? For Nepal’s indigenous communities, climate finance for health resilience is not a luxury — it is a necessity. This was a call to COP29 to create a dedicated, accountable climate health fund that will specifically address these health challenges in climate-vulnerable regions, with a focus on indigenous communities. Ensuring equitable access to and effective management of natural resources in Nepal is critical not only for justice but also for the success of climate finance initiatives. How can we justify allocating funds for climate adaptation when entrenched corruption and geopolitical interests dictate who benefits from our natural wealth?

For climate finance to succeed, it must confront the entrenched flaws in governance that favour tokenistic participation over genuine representation. Current practices often cherry-pick elites from indigenous communities under the guise of identity politics, sidelining grassroots voices and perpetuating inequities. This superficial approach dilutes the transformative potential of climate action, reducing it to mere optics.  Nepal’s indigenous communities demand climate finance frameworks that eliminate elite capture, ensure genuine community-led participation, and enforce equity while upholding indigenous rights, as anything less perpetuates the very injustices climate finance seeks to address.

And on the pressing side is the displacement and resettlement needs of indigenous and local communities as the result of climate change — relocations aren’t just logistical challenges; they represent profound erasures of languages, traditions, and sacred spaces — the hermeneutical injustices that are largely overlooked in current finance frameworks. How do we reconcile these losses within this climate finance frameworks ? Are we truly accounting for the cultural identities that are at stake as communities are uprooted? 

A recent tragedy in Nepal exemplifies this harsh reality. On August 16, 2024, two glacial lakes burst in the Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality of the Everest region, destroying the entire settlement of 45 households in Thame village. This catastrophic flood, caused by unseasonably high temperatures accelerating glacial melt, obliterated not only infrastructure but also centuries-old cultural ties to the land. This is not merely about adaptation; it is about justice — justice for those who contribute least to global emissions yet bear the most profound losses, including the destruction of their identities and histories.

Autonomy

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not just a procedural box to check; it is a fundamental right for indigenous communities, enabling them to control decisions about their lands and resources. The process must respect their autonomy and involve them at every stage, from planning to implementation, to ensure it is meaningful and not just a formality. True participation is about empowering communities at the grassroots level, with policies that go beyond mere consultation to achieve consent. 

FPIC should be more than a bureaucratic formality; it must be a genuine process that respects indigenous voices and choices at every stage of development. In conclusion, let us remember that climate finance must serve people, not politics. We should go far beyond policy statements — to create a world where climate finance serves those who need it most and acknowledges those who have paid the highest price.

(The writer is a programme specialist at Rural Reconstruction Nepal.)