Climate Justice in Nepal: From Rhetoric to Reality

Lavish Jung Gurung 

Nepal entered the global environmental discourse more than five decades ago with its participation in the 1972 Stockholm Conference. Since then, it has remained an active party to international climate platforms, including the landmark United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio in 1992 and subsequent Conferences of the Parties (COP). However, despite this engagement, Nepal’s environmental policies have largely remained a top-down affair driven by international commitments and expert consultations, but often divorced from the needs, voices, and lived realities of local and marginalized communities. The notion of climate justice though lacking a single universal definition offers a lens to examine fairness in the distribution of climate change’s burdens and benefits. It emphasizes the principle that those least responsible for causing climate change should not be the ones suffering its most devastating impacts. Yet, in Nepal, this idea remains on the periphery of policy implementation. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) framework, through the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and voices from COP summits, highlight equity and justice in climate action. Similarly, organizations like ActionAid International frame climate justice as part of the broader struggle for social justice one that recognizes the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized populations. In Nepal, climate justice is still largely confined to slogans such as “we need grants, not loans” and loosely articulated demands for compensation under the polluter-pays principle. While the national discourse acknowledges loss and damage, policies remain inadequate in addressing the deeper structural injustices exacerbated by climate change.

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution, in Article 30(1), enshrines the right to live in a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right. It also provides for compensation for environmental harm. But this constitutional promise has yet to be realized through meaningful and enforceable legislation aligned with climate justice. The Environment Protection Act (EPA), 2019 represents a progressive step, aiming to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation into national planning. However, its implementation remains non-mandatory and discretionary. While it recognizes vulnerable groups, its failure to mandate accountability, enforce penalties for environmental harm, or institutionalize the rights of affected populations undermines its potential. Consider the case of Chure rivers, where unregulated extraction of sand and boulders continues to destroy local ecosystems and harm vulnerable riverine communities yet polluters go unpunished, and compensation remains elusive. Forests, Local Governments, and the Policy Disconnect The Forest Act, 2019 includes provisions related to carbon sequestration and ecosystem services in line with Nepal’s Paris Agreement commitments. However, it lacks clarity on carbon credit ownership and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms for forest-dependent and Indigenous communities. The Local Government Operation Act, 2017 gives sub-national governments roles in environmental management, but their disaster response mechanisms are weak, and climate change adaptation strategies often ignore the most at-risk including Dalits, Indigenous Peoples, and women. Similarly, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017, while establishing institutional structures for disaster response, fails to secure land tenure rights for resettled families and does not mainstream gender perspectives or the resilience needs of climate-vulnerable groups.

Climate Regulations: Gaps in Equity and Intersectionality

While the Environment Protection Regulations, 2020 introduce public participation and a gender-sensitive framework, they fall short of adopting an intersectional approach overlooking the compounded vulnerabilities experienced by landless and Indigenous women, who are often at the frontlines of environmental injustice. Climate finance provisions remain vague and inadequately responsive to grassroots demands. The Solid Waste Management Rule, 2013, although essential for mitigation through Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction, is silent on polluter accountability, compensation mechanisms, or justice for impacted communities.

Still a Work in Progress The National Climate Change Policy, 2019 ambitiously commits to allocating 80% of international climate finance to the local level and includes the voices of marginalized groups. However, it views women and disadvantaged communities as beneficiaries rather than agents of change, reflecting a top-down charity model rather than a rights-based approach. The National Land Policy, 2019 and National Environment Policy, 2019 promote tenure rights and environmental justice, respectively. Yet, coordination gaps and lack of transparency obstruct their implementation. The National Water Resources Policy, 2020 includes social safeguards and equity in resource sharing but suffers from weak inter-agency collaboration and poor public accessibility to key impact assessments. Finally, the Agriculture Policy, 2004, though outdated, recognizes the climate vulnerability of marginal farmers and seeks to enhance their adaptive capacities. It highlights women’s participation but lacks integration with current climate resilience frameworks.

"Nepal’s security institutions including Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force, the Nepal Army, local people, frontline volunteers, and community-based organizations have repeatedly demonstrated resolve and dedication during environmental crises. Their role in search and rescue operations, disaster relief, and emergency coordination has been commendable. However, in the absence of a people-centered climate justice framework and a strong enforcement mechanism, even the most efficient disaster responses remain reactive strategies rather than proactive, preventive solutions.

A Call for Rights-Based Climate Action Nepal’s legislative and policy frameworks exhibit encouraging intent but climate justice cannot remain a rhetorical aspiration. It must be institutionalized through enforceable laws, localized through participatory planning, and humanized through an equity-focused approach that places the most vulnerable at the center. Climate change is not just an environmental issue it is a profound social and ethical crisis. If Nepal wishes to lead by example in South Asia and beyond, it must bridge the gap between policy and people, between promise and practice, and between sustainability and justice.