Nepal’s Climate Journey : Finance, COP, and Just Transition

Nepal’s engagement in global climate discussions has been shaped by both opportunities and challenges. Our News Editor Sarah Sapsanamma Rai spoke to Experts Manjeet G. Dhakal and Chhetri on climate finance, COP participation, and just transition. Here are the excepts:

Q: What was Nepal’s agenda at COP 30, and how did it impact the discussions?

Dhakal: At COP 30, Nepal emphasized the vulnerability of mountain communities to climate change, advocating for adaptation solutions specific to our context. We also pushed for greater attention to local governments in climate actions, ensuring that climate-resilient development is prioritized.

Chhetri: Nepal’s agenda focused on sustainable development practices, including clean energy and forest conservation. We also challenged developed nations to fulfill their climate finance commitments and to support the just transition for countries like Nepal that face unique challenges in moving away from fossil fuels.

Video

Q: Is there a distinction on the nature of funds that come under Climate Finance?

Dhakal: The definition of climate finance is still not globally agreed upon. As a result, we don’t always clearly distinguish between funds meant for climate action and other development resources. We mostly track funds from dedicated climate finance mechanisms, like the Green Climate Fund, but climate finance is often mixed with regular development assistance.

Chhetri: Currently, Nepal doesn’t have a national definition for climate finance, but the Ministry of Finance is working on differentiating between regular development aid (ODA) and climate-specific funds. This will help in reporting to the international community, as we need to submit information on climate finance received under the Paris Agreement.

Q: Has Nepal’s participation at COP been effective?

Dhakal: Nepal has had head-of-state participation at five COPs, starting from 2009. This sends a strong message about the country’s commitment. However, real influence comes from technical negotiators working inside the rooms. Nepal also participates in side events and bilateral meetings to strengthen its impact.

Chhetri: The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COPs has grown, which weakens the positions of vulnerable countries. However, leadership like that of Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, shows that even smaller nations can challenge fossil fuel interests and push for greater action.

Q: How did Nepal represent vulnerable communities at COP 30?

Dhakal: Despite challenges in logistics, Nepal made sure to have a well-rounded delegation that included representatives from civil society and indigenous communities. This allowed us to amplify the voices of the most vulnerable in climate negotiations, though the high costs of attending COPs remain a hurdle for many developing nations.

Chhetri: The Nepalese delegation was smaller this time, but still impactful, with support from organizations like the UN. The logistical challenges at COP 30, including the cost of travel and limited accommodation, did impact participation, but Nepal was able to make its presence felt.

Q: How can Nepal transition from fossil fuels considering its unique context?

Dhakal: Nepal’s energy is already largely clean, with hydropower being the main source. Our real challenge is transitioning from biomass to cleaner alternatives like electric cooking and reducing dependence on petroleum products. The transport sector has already made significant progress with electric vehicles, exceeding targets for EV sales set in our NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions).

Chhetri: Globally, the transition away from fossil fuels is already underway. For Nepal, it’s a matter of adopting efficient technology. The transition to electric energy whether for cooking or transportation is not only environmentally beneficial but also economically smart, especially as global energy efficiency standards improve.

Q: Can Nepal leverage its bilateral relationships to support a just transition?

Dhakal: Nepal’s situation is different because we already produce clean electricity. Our focus should be on reducing biomass use and adopting electric cooking and transportation solutions. We can work with international partners to leapfrog from traditional energy sources directly to clean energy solutions, taking advantage of our hydropower resources.

Chhetri: Nepal is in a strong position due to its abundant renewable energy sources. By shifting from biomass to electric solutions for cooking, lighting, and transportation, we can reduce fossil fuel dependency and create a sustainable energy system that benefits both the environment and the economy.

Q: Are there countries or communities that have set good examples that Nepal can learn from?

Dhakal: Costa Rica has done impressive work in transitioning to renewable energy, especially with wind energy. Bhutan has set a great example by ensuring that more than 72% of its land is forested, embedding conservation into its constitution. Nepal has similar potential, especially with forest conservation and clean energy initiatives.

Chhetri: Countries like Germany have pioneered self-sufficient energy villages, which produce, consume, and even sell their own energy. While Nepal faces challenges with infrastructure, the potential for renewable energy especially hydropower is huge, and we can adopt similar practices for self-sufficiency.

Q: How do you view the issue of development vs. environmental protection in Nepal?

Chhetri: Development and environmental protection should not be seen as opposing forces. If we focus solely on infrastructure development without considering the environment, we may end up harming the very ecosystems we depend on. For example, hydropower should be developed without damaging national parks or other protected areas.

Dhakal: Sustainable development needs a mindset shift. Rather than viewing forests and protected areas as obstacles, we need to see them as essential parts of our development. Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, like petroleum pipelines, could become a long-term burden for Nepal if we don’t make the right choices now.

Q: What wrong investments have Nepal made, and what lessons can be learned?

Dhakal: Investments like the petroleum pipeline or pushing development projects that encroach on forests are problematic. There is a need for more balanced decision-making—forest conservation and development should go hand in hand. Investments must be future-focused, ensuring that they align with climate resilience and sustainability.

Chhetri: In Nepal, there’s a tendency to view forests as obstacles to infrastructure development, but we need to rethink this approach. Hydropower and other developments should be done with environmental protection in mind, as ignoring climate considerations could lead to more expensive problems in the future.

Q: What were the key takeaways from COP 30 moving into COP 31?

Dhakal: The biggest takeaway is that action must happen at the local level. While international processes like COP are important for setting global agendas, it’s the federal and local governments in Nepal that will implement adaptation priorities and promote clean energy investments. Nepal’s focus should be on local solutions and community-level resilience.

Chhetri: Three key takeaways from COP 30:

1. The Paris Agreement remains vital and actionable.
2. Multilateralism is still working, with countries like Nepal actively participating.
3. International forums signal the need for action, but local actions in Nepal will truly drive change.